Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Swampbuggy]

I suppose it depends on what we want to do with them. Will they be primarily deployed in our waters, or do we need them to go beyond that. If so, how far? Africa, Gulf of Aden or limited to Caribbean ops? I know that the AOPS are capable of any of the above, but with a fleet size of 6, I believe it will be difficult to schedule in many overseas missions. So, IMHO, you need a vessel that can serve any where, short of major combat operations. I'd suggest it be longer, faster and larger displacement than a KINGSTON. Ability to land a helo and UAV, but have a bay/hangar where the later could be maintained/housed. An area for containerized kit/cargo is a must as are two quickly deployable and recoverable RHIBS.

Weapons suite wouldn't have to be too crazy, for it's role. I'd prefer a 57mm main gun and a pair of RWS, but realistically a 25-30mm would probably suffice.

As far as existing examples go, I keep looking at the Kiwi OTAGO class. I know there were weight problems, but I believe that was largely due to special ice shielding for Ross Sea and Antarctic operations. Outside of that, it's a competent ship that would be a good fit.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Back to MCDV replacement, what do y'all think should be the requirements? Now we know somewhat what the AOPS can do, are we thinking that remote minehunting can be done from them? Given increased speed is on the table perhaps a proper fast patrol boat is on the table?

MGBs. Base some in the Carribean for Ops rotating crews and support pers; some on either coast and a couple in the Great Lakes and other coastal reserve units.

 

[dimsum]

a couple in the Great Lakes and other coastal reserve units.

Wouldn't that impact the Rush-Bagot Treaty though?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Wouldn't that impact the Rush-Bagot Treaty though?

That's a good question, I don't know. I just want to engage the reserves where they are as much as possible.

 

[Underway]

Some interesting route survey news here:

KRAKEN Tests Equipment with RCN

 

[Maxman1]

I suppose it depends on what we want to do with them. Will they be primarily deployed in our waters, or do we need them to go beyond that. If so, how far? Africa, Gulf of Aden or limited to Caribbean ops? I know that the AOPS are capable of any of the above, but with a fleet size of 6, I believe it will be difficult to schedule in many overseas missions. So, IMHO, you need a vessel that can serve any where, short of major combat operations. I'd suggest it be longer, faster and larger displacement than a KINGSTON. Ability to land a helo and UAV, but have a bay/hangar where the later could be maintained/housed. An area for containerized kit/cargo is a must as are two quickly deployable and recoverable RHIBS.

Weapons suite wouldn't have to be too crazy, for it's role. I'd prefer a 57mm main gun and a pair of RWS, but realistically a 25-30mm would probably suffice.

As far as existing examples go, I keep looking at the Kiwi OTAGO class. I know there were weight problems, but I believe that was largely due to special ice shielding for Ross Sea and Antarctic operations. Outside of that, it's a competent ship that would be a good fit.

Or there's the German Braunschweig and the Finnish Pohjannma.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Or there's the German Braunschweig and the Finnish Pohjannma.

Who cares, as long as we call them 'Corvettes' and cover them in dazzle-flage

 

[JMCanada]

Depending on what we want them to do...
a) for patrolling in Africa, gulf of Aden or anti-piracy ... something between the AOPS and the CSC. Either the Type 31 or the next EPC (south-European Patrol Corvette). Crew about 100.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1451169802660233217

https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/European-Patrol-Corvette-EPC-768x598.png


b) for mine clearance, anti-drug ops. and training, ... better a 1,500-2,500 tonnes OPV, crew of a few dozens (thirty-six to sixty?) as earlier discussed (few months ago) in this thread.

 

[Underway]

I think this was posted here before but its worth repeating.

The UK River Class OPV are a very good example of an OPV for northern lattitudes.

I want to highlight is the following commentary.

The Batch I OPVs are only armed with a single, manually-aimed 20mm cannon and a few GMPGs. Although it might be nice for them to be armed to the teeth in case of all eventualities, this would be a poor use of resources as they spend most of their time policing fishing boats. When tasked primarily to provide surveillance, conduct boarding operations and provide a presence in UK waters, having additional heavy weapons would be almost pointless.

There is a strong argument that if the RN has any ‘spare funds’ (looking increasingly unlikely again!) then it might be better invested in adding more capability to the Type 31 frigates which are more suited to going into harm’s way. In an ideal scenario, all vessels would be permanently equipped with a full spectrum of armament, allowing them to be rapidly redeployed at very short notice and able to cope with the highest level threats. With constrained resources, the RN already has to share some equipment between ships as they rotate in and out of high threat areas. Enhancing the OPVs in a modest way makes sense but equipping them to corvette standard would appear to be an unnecessary luxury.

This is the exact commentary that needs to be understood for RCN "non-combatant" ships. Stick to the non-combatant shelf. Canada won't/don't have the resources for corvettes (all the cost with none of the survivability of a frigate) type ships. Both AOPS and MCDV clearly fit into this mandate.

I would be over the moon if a ship with the capabilities of the River Class (Type 2) were something we decided upon. Decent seakeeping, good range, 25knots, flight deck for equipment/helo ops, 25-30mm, room for passengers, 16-ton crane.

 

[Stoker]

The design that saw for the replacement took the original requirements for the Kingston class and made a few changes, one was a top speed of 25 knots and it does have a gun.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Without worrying, for even a μsecond, about what they are called, OPV or corvette or something else, it seems to me that Canada needs a mixed fleet:

• Ideally some (say two or three) amphibious ships ~ helicopter carriers ~ which can bye the centre of a true power projection capability. No service can project power as well as the Navy does and a joint (amphibious) force is, I think, the epitome of power projection;
• Ships to escort those "high value" amphibious ships ~ that likely means at least eight to twelve combatant ships and a couple of oilers; and
• Aircraft to fly long range patrol/ASW and CAP over that force .

I suspect that the amphibious ships are just some commodore's or commander's wet dream but the major surface combatants ~ reported to be weighing in at more than 7,500 tons (when Canada last had a "cruiser" she displaced less than 9,000 tons) ~ are real but will we have more than six to eight of them? It seems to me that the largish Type 26 "frigate" should be augmented by some smaller, more economical, but still capable ships: maybe a dozen or so vessels displaying less than 3,500 tons ~ built and armed to full military standards and carrying organic, multi-role shipborne UAVs. In addition I believe Canadians should have a force of dedicated, purpose built, mine warfare vessels which can be double hatted a training ships. Finally, we need submarines ~ in my opinion under-ice-capable submarines.

So, at a guess:

n amphibious ships;
8-12 major surface combatants ~ the (7,500+ ton) Type 26 ships;
4 AORs;
10-15 smaller combatants ~ 3,000± ton ships (called something other than littoral combat ships);
5-10 small (less than 1,000 ton?) mine warfare ships;
6-12 under-ice capable submarines;
nn tenders and tugs and training vessels and, and, and ....

The only real problems involve finding:

• Enough money to build, operate and maintain them; and
• Enough properly trained (and organized and well led) sailors to serve in them.

 

[GR66]

Without worrying, for even a μsecond, about what they are called, OPV or corvette or something else, it seems to me that Canada needs a mixed fleet:

• Ideally some (say two or three) amphibious ships ~ helicopter carriers ~ which can bye the centre of a true power projection capability. No service can project power as well as the Navy does and a joint (amphibious) force is, I think, the epitome of power projection;
• Ships to escort those "high value" amphibious ships ~ that likely means at least eight to twelve combatant ships and a couple of oilers; and
• Aircraft to fly long range patrol/ASW and CAP over that force .

I suspect that the amphibious ships are just some commodore's or commander's wet dream but the major surface combatants ~ reported to be weighing in at more than 7,500 tons (when Canada last had a "cruiser" she displaced less than 9,000 tons) ~ are real but will we have more than six to eight of them? It seems to me that the largish Type 26 "frigate" should be augmented by some smaller, more economical, but still capable ships: maybe a dozen or so vessels displaying less than 3,500 tons ~ built and armed to full military standards and carrying organic, multi-role shipborne UAVs. In addition I believe Canadians should have a force of dedicated, purpose built, mine warfare vessels which can be double hatted a training ships. Finally, we need submarines ~ in my opinion under-ice-capable submarines.

So, at a guess:

n amphibious ships;
8-12 major surface combatants ~ the (7,500+ ton) Type 26 ships;
4 AORs;
10-15 smaller combatants ~ 3,000± ton ships (called something other than littoral combat ships);
5-10 small (less than 1,000 ton?) mine warfare ships;
6-12 under-ice capable submarines;
nn tenders and tugs and training vessels and, and, and ....

The only real problems involve finding:

• Enough money to build, operate and maintain them; and
• Enough properly trained (and organized and well led) sailors to serve in them.

Nothing to argue about in my mind about that other than the possibility that the role of the dedicated mine warfare ships could possibly be taken over by USVs and UUVs as appears to be the general direction that this technology appears to be going. As long as the small combatants and the AOPS have the capability of deploying these units a separate class may possibly not be required.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think this was posted here before but its worth repeating.

The UK River Class OPV are a very good example of an OPV for northern lattitudes.

I want to highlight is the following commentary.





This is the exact commentary that needs to be understood for RCN "non-combatant" ships. Stick to the non-combatant shelf. Canada won't/don't have the resources for corvettes (all the cost with none of the survivability of a frigate) type ships. Both AOPS and MCDV clearly fit into this mandate.

I would be over the moon if a ship with the capabilities of the River Class (Type 2) were something we decided upon. Decent seakeeping, good range, 25knots, flight deck for equipment/helo ops, 25-30mm, room for passengers, 16-ton crane.

As I recall the RN is sending their newest OPV's (River Class 2) to SE Asia and the Persian Gulf, mainly as they are short of frigates and funding. It's an interim solution, but shows how unplanned mission creep can happen.

I like the River Class as well, but I suspect we would be giving up the ice strengthened hull for it.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The design that saw for the replacement took the original requirements for the Kingston class and made a few changes, one was a top speed of 25 knots and it does have a gun.

Speed is great but it always comes at a price, depends what that price is?

 

[JMCanada]

I think this was posted here before but its worth repeating (...)

Canada won't/don't have the resources for corvettes (all the cost with none of the survivability of a frigate) type ships. Both AOPS and MCDV clearly fit into this mandate.

Do you think that other countries, such as UK, France or Italy do have spare resources to invest in corvettes or general purpose frigates? Or might it be that, precisely due to the scarcity of resources, have opted instead for a more economical, mixed fleet of AAW/ASW/GP frigates?

Note: call them AAW destroyers, ASW frigates and corvettes or whatsoever.

 

[Navy_Pete]

It won't help. Literally closing the barn after the horses have fled. The trade restructure is not the reason people are leaving or not joining. It's easy to point to it but skill trades everywhere are hurting. Not just the navy.

Between the "classism" of going to university vice trade school and a shrinking working demographic, there is going to be a pain for everyone.

Not really the thread for it but when do we ever follow threads properly. This whole website is half stream of consciousness... which is why I love it!

Back to MCDV replacement, what do y'all think should be the requirements? Now we know somewhat what the AOPS can do, are we thinking that remote minehunting can be done from them? Given increased speed is on the table perhaps a proper fast patrol boat is on the table?

I know more than a few former HTs and ELs that left specifically because of the restructuring, and others that are on their way out for the same reason. Actually, can think of a few former ERs that left as well. Bad news for the navy, but handy for the public service and ISSCs.

The actual plan the RCN choose was the bullcrap throwaway COA, but now that folks that made the decision are gone we can finally relook at the disaster. The idea was bad (and the RN specifically told us not to do that because they did and it didn't work), but politics and saving face were a lot of it. It would have needed a tranformation of the training system to support, and we're still trying to define the martech training requirements 6 years later (with only a small portion done).

 

[Czech_pivo]

Without worrying, for even a μsecond, about what they are called, OPV or corvette or something else, it seems to me that Canada needs a mixed fleet:

• Ideally some (say two or three) amphibious ships ~ helicopter carriers ~ which can bye the centre of a true power projection capability. No service can project power as well as the Navy does and a joint (amphibious) force is, I think, the epitome of power projection;
• Ships to escort those "high value" amphibious ships ~ that likely means at least eight to twelve combatant ships and a couple of oilers; and
• Aircraft to fly long range patrol/ASW and CAP over that force .

I suspect that the amphibious ships are just some commodore's or commander's wet dream but the major surface combatants ~ reported to be weighing in at more than 7,500 tons (when Canada last had a "cruiser" she displaced less than 9,000 tons) ~ are real but will we have more than six to eight of them? It seems to me that the largish Type 26 "frigate" should be augmented by some smaller, more economical, but still capable ships: maybe a dozen or so vessels displaying less than 3,500 tons ~ built and armed to full military standards and carrying organic, multi-role shipborne UAVs. In addition I believe Canadians should have a force of dedicated, purpose built, mine warfare vessels which can be double hatted a training ships. Finally, we need submarines ~ in my opinion under-ice-capable submarines.

So, at a guess:

n amphibious ships;
8-12 major surface combatants ~ the (7,500+ ton) Type 26 ships;
4 AORs;
10-15 smaller combatants ~ 3,000± ton ships (called something other than littoral combat ships);
5-10 small (less than 1,000 ton?) mine warfare ships;
6-12 under-ice capable submarines;
nn tenders and tugs and training vessels and, and, and ....

The only real problems involve finding:

• Enough money to build, operate and maintain them; and
• Enough properly trained (and organized and well led) sailors to serve in them.

I’d like to hear from those in the know on here, if the CSC’s were reduced to 12 from 15, in terms of Amphibious and/or the smaller combatants ~3,000+- ton ships, what would the money and manpower savings buy?
The crew of a Mistral, how similar to a fitted out, with air detachment, CSC is it?

 

[Czech_pivo]

As I recall the RN is sending their newest OPV's (River Class 2) to SE Asia and the Persian Gulf, mainly as they are short of frigates and funding. It's an interim solution, but shows how unplanned mission creep can happen.

I like the River Class as well, but I suspect we would be giving up the ice strengthened hull for it.

Don’t they station one of them down in the Falklands?

 

[dimsum]

The crew of a Mistral, how similar to a fitted out, with air detachment, CSC is it?

Not at all. Mistral is an LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock), whereas CSC is like a destroyer.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Don’t they station one of them down in the Falklands?

yes that as well, but the Argies are much less of a threat now.