• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
4,933
Points
1,160
I would rather that we put a higher tax on ferries built overseas, with the taxes reduced if the buyer can show they made a honest effort to get the ferry made here. The BC shipyards had to stay alive on commercial contracts for a long time, it will be good for the others to follow the same practices.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
100
Points
530
I would rather that we put a higher tax on ferries built overseas, with the taxes reduced if the buyer can show they made a honest effort to get the ferry made here. The BC shipyards had to stay alive on commercial contracts for a long time, it will be good for the others to follow the same practices.
Yes. More should be done so that in the future, more ships are built in Canada. I definitely do not want, for example, China to be building ships for Canada.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,757
Points
1,060
To Colin's point.

The MCDVs displace 970 tonnes.

For the construction of smaller ships, Canada has set aside the individual projects for competitive procurements amongst shipyards other than the selected shipyards and their affiliated companies that are building the larger vessels. Smaller vessels represent those with less than 1,000 tonnes of displacement.

That would include yards in Newfoundland and Ontario.

Now if only we could convince NCIS's Jethro Gibbs to relocate to Alberta perhaps he could re-launch the Athabaska Landing boat-building industry.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
883
Points
1,060
If we "give" the MCDV replacement to Davie that should be enough to balance out with the other yards and allow all 3 yards to compete for federal work going forward. I would worry about spreading it any thinner than that though.

1. Aiviq refit/conversion to cover the gap between the Polar icebreaker coming online
2. Polar icebreaker
3. 6-8 medium icebreakers
4. 6-8 MCDV replacements
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,630
Points
1,040
Part of signing up for NSS specifically makes them ineligible for the smaller ship builds. There is also Group Ocean and a few other yards along the St. Lawrence that are active, as well as a bunch out in BC.

The nice thing is with the lower value they don't get into the really heavy bureacratic overhead that kicks in at $100M for the ITBs etc. That eats up a few FTEs (that we pay for), but also gets sucked into the morass of DPS that slows down any real decisions. The general amount of overhead just to feed the government non-technical needs is pretty staggering.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
85
Points
380
I strongly doubt an MCDV replacement with the previously stated capabilities of 25kts, mounted main gun (of whatever calibre), with the ability to launch RHIBS and UAV's AND handle the North Atlantic (not to mention possible trips to Africa) would displace less than 1000t.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
100
Points
530
If we "give" the MCDV replacement to Davie that should be enough to balance out with the other yards and allow all 3 yards to compete for federal work going forward. I would worry about spreading it any thinner than that though.

1. Aiviq refit/conversion to cover the gap between the Polar icebreaker coming online
Aiviq might have a problem with her design making her unsuitable for Canada.

Page 43:

"As the AIVIQ was prepared for this voyage there were two areas that affected the upcoming towing plans. One concern was the vessels design issues, which was identified as water ingress into the winch room and safe deck areas affecting the vent on the fuel system and electrical fittings in the space. The Master of the AIVIQ sent ECO management an email entitled “Storm Damage Lessons Learned” and added a statement from a former crewmember detailing an account of a storm while AIVIQ was towing the KULLUK. In that account the crewmember detailed the AIVIQ taking on a sustained list in the storm due to sea water ingress. As temporary measure to limit water ingress internal openings in the winch room were closed or covered, the hinged freeing port covers were removed and temporary covers were placed over the lower winch room openings to the main deck prior to the voyage commencing.

"54. The other issue was a host of mechanical problems that had occurred on previous voyages. There were issues with the engine room automation, resulting in the overheating of the main diesel engine #4 and complete failure of that engine on the voyage south with the AIVIQ towing the KULLUK to Dutch Harbor. Some of these issues were required to be reported to the classification society, ABS and the U.S. Coast Guard. The major issues are mentioned here and remained unresolved as the AIVIQ was readied for sea."
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,758
Points
1,090
A few minutes of google tells me that there's 3 easy options already on the market for Corvette type ships of less than 1000 tons.

Visby
Sa'ar 5
Baynunah

The Visby is probably most in line with what we'd be after - it even operates the Bofors 57mm gun, so we could rescue them off the Halifax Class and re-use them on this class as the hulls age out. It even uses the Saab 9LV Combat Management System too.

Build a few of these instead of the 'extra 2' AOPS hulls, and get them running instead of continuing to drive the Halifax class into the ground...
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,022
Points
1,040
A few minutes of google tells me that there's 3 easy options already on the market for Corvette type ships of less than 1000 tons.

Visby
Sa'ar 5
Baynunah

The Visby is probably most in line with what we'd be after - it even operates the Bofors 57mm gun, so we could rescue them off the Halifax Class and re-use them on this class as the hulls age out. It even uses the Saab 9LV Combat Management System too.

Build a few of these instead of the 'extra 2' AOPS hulls, and get them running instead of continuing to drive the Halifax class into the ground...
I love it. It's smaller, faster, has a reasonably sized crew and has a whole bunch of weapons. What more could you want. Let's get some.

🍻
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
14,942
Points
1,160
A few minutes of google tells me that there's 3 easy options already on the market for Corvette type ships of less than 1000 tons.

Visby
Sa'ar 5
Baynunah

The Visby is probably most in line with what we'd be after - it even operates the Bofors 57mm gun, so we could rescue them off the Halifax Class and re-use them on this class as the hulls age out. It even uses the Saab 9LV Combat Management System too.

Build a few of these instead of the 'extra 2' AOPS hulls, and get them running instead of continuing to drive the Halifax class into the ground...

And Visby was a pretty violent medieval battle, so it has my vote!

 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,392
Points
1,160
A few minutes of google tells me that there's 3 easy options already on the market for Corvette type ships of less than 1000 tons.

Visby
Sa'ar 5
Baynunah

The Visby is probably most in line with what we'd be after - it even operates the Bofors 57mm gun, so we could rescue them off the Halifax Class and re-use them on this class as the hulls age out. It even uses the Saab 9LV Combat Management System too.

Build a few of these instead of the 'extra 2' AOPS hulls, and get them running instead of continuing to drive the Halifax class into the ground...
According to Wikipedia:

Kingston Range: 5,000 nmi
Visby Range: 2,500 nmi
Sa'ar 5 Range: 3,500 nmi
Baynunah Range: 2,400 nmi

I'd say range is a pretty important requirement for an RCN ship
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,022
Points
1,040
According to Wikipedia:

Kingston Range: 5,000 nmi
Visby Range: 2,500 nmi
Sa'ar 5 Range: 3,500 nmi
Baynunah Range: 2,400 nmi

I'd say range is a pretty important requirement for an RCN ship
If it reduced is speed from the max of 35 knots to the Kingston's 15 would it double it's range? or would it need a few more fuel tanks? or a replenishment ship?

Not a sailor but the range thing looks like it can be dealt with if necessary - but you can't make a Kingston faster. Not sure if you can weld on more weapon stations and the sensors.

🍻
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,392
Points
1,160
If it reduced is speed from the max of 35 knots to the Kingston's 15 would it double it's range? or would it need a few more fuel tanks? or a replenishment ship?

Not a sailor but the range thing looks like it can be dealt with if necessary - but you can't make a Kingston faster. Not sure if you can weld on more weapon stations and the sensors.

🍻
From a bit of further reading the 2,500 nmi range for the Visby is at 15 knots, not 35. The Kingston's range of 5,000 nmi is at 8 knots.

Someone far wiser than me would have to comment on the range at full speed, but my gut is telling me that doubling your speed would more than double your fuel consumption.

Edited to add: This site gives some explanations and examples of the effects of speed on fuel consumption and it seems that increasing speed on a displacement hull can have very large impacts on fuel consumption.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
85
Points
380
A few minutes of google tells me that there's 3 easy options already on the market for Corvette type ships of less than 1000 tons.

Visby
Sa'ar 5
Baynunah

The Visby is probably most in line with what we'd be after - it even operates the Bofors 57mm gun, so we could rescue them off the Halifax Class and re-use them on this class as the hulls age out. It even uses the Saab 9LV Combat Management System too.

Build a few of these instead of the 'extra 2' AOPS hulls, and get them running instead of continuing to drive the Halifax class into the ground...
I'm no expert, but I've been told before on these threads that these type of ships are often very specific to their area of operations. VISBY is for Baltic Ops, relatively small AOO and not the grind that operating a vessel in the North Atlantic can be/is. Same for the other two, being the Med or Gulf respectively. My understanding is that the replacement for a KINGSTON would have be faster with better seakeeping in the places they get sent. Throw in the need to carry sea cans and maybe even future proof the design with some space for growth, and you wind up with something over the 1000t mark, seeing as how an MCDV is already just at that line.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,453
Points
1,040
Folks, it's not a combat ship replacement (or creation) project. It's an MCM and OPV replacement project. Instead of ignoring the capability gap here is the challenge: Find a ship that fits the following requirements.

OPV's are not heavily armed, need good range and seakeeping. They do policing type operations (fisheries, counter-narcotics, security training with 2nd/3rd world nations) and recognized maritime picture operations.

MCM is kitted out to find, fix and destroy undersea mines. Route survey is also a job that they do.

MCDV's are used as training and development platforms as well.

25knots, 40 crew. 10-15 extra bunks.

What platform fits those requirements in a single ship?
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
100
Points
530
Folks, it's not a combat ship replacement (or creation) project. It's an MCM and OPV replacement project. Instead of ignoring the capability gap here is the challenge: Find a ship that fits the following requirements.

OPV's are not heavily armed, need good range and seakeeping. They do policing type operations (fisheries, counter-narcotics, security training with 2nd/3rd world nations) and recognized maritime picture operations.

MCM is kitted out to find, fix and destroy undersea mines. Route survey is also a job that they do.

MCDV's are used as training and development platforms as well.

25knots, 40 crew. 10-15 extra bunks.

What platform fits those requirements in a single ship?
Are we talking about a full-load displacement of about 1 500 tonnes? What is the displacement range? A hangar for one light helicopter and two drones? Designed, as much as possible, to commercial and not military standards? An emphasis on low cost to build and operate?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,453
Points
1,040
Are we talking about a full-load displacement of about 1 500 tonnes? What is the displacement range? A hangar for one light helicopter and two drones? Designed, as much as possible, to commercial and not military standards? An emphasis on low cost to build and operate?
Intentionally vague on my part. I want to see the industry.... errr forum solutions! Consider yourself a consultant, look at options, pros and cons. Sell your solution. Have fun with it.
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,754
Points
1,140
Folks, it's not a combat ship replacement (or creation) project. It's an MCM and OPV replacement project. Instead of ignoring the capability gap here is the challenge: Find a ship that fits the following requirements.

OPV's are not heavily armed, need good range and seakeeping. They do policing type operations (fisheries, counter-narcotics, security training with 2nd/3rd world nations) and recognized maritime picture operations.

MCM is kitted out to find, fix and destroy undersea mines. Route survey is also a job that they do.

MCDV's are used as training and development platforms as well.

25knots, 40 crew. 10-15 extra bunks.

What platform fits those requirements in a single ship?
Is there any ships in the water today that are doing both MCM and OPV with 25ish kn of speed?

Why not build the correct ship for the correct task?

MCM, from what I’ve read, tend to be small, under 1k tons and slow, under 15kn

OPV tend to be 1600+ tons and 22+kn

Why are we thinking of building some mutant hybrid that in the end will most likely perform each task substandard?
 
Top