• 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)

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,303
Points
1,010
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?
You're the consultant, you tell me. Again fun is the point of this. I think everyone likes a good wishlist. Let's do it with the constraints that I listed above.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,924
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?
I understand all that but we have limited funds to build a Navy with. We do need small ships for those various functions, but a well designed and well armed ship can perform all of them while a limited purpose ship cannot fight. At the end of the day this is the Canadian "Armed" Forces. It's the last line we have to defend Canada's interests.

When it comes down to it, a limited purpose ship is a wasted hull. Our problem is that because of the cost of the weapon systems we cheap out and spend the money on a few extra hulls which it seems we're unable to properly man anyway.

I appreciate the need for good range and seakeeping but that doesn't exclude a a weapons platform. IMHO, every ship we own should be able to carry and use anti-ship, anti-sub and anti-air weapon systems.

And, while I'm on my high horse, like the Army, the Navy needs redesign its Res F system to properly man many of those ships. There used to be a time when the RCNVR was the backbone of the Navy at a significantly reduced manpower cost. Yes, there are technical skills which require full-timers but many functions can be done by part-timers so that when the need is there, so will be the ships and crews.

🍻
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
9,214
Points
1,160
And, while I'm on my high horse, like the Army, the Navy needs redesign its Res F system to properly man many of those ships. There used to be a time when the RCNVR was the backbone of the Navy at a significantly reduced manpower cost. Yes, there are technical skills which require full-timers but many functions can be done by part-timers so that when the need is there, so will be the ships and crews.

🍻

Bring back horses you say? Excellent initiative!

Tally Ho!

200.gif
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,345
Points
1,260
And, while I'm on my high horse, like the Army, the Navy needs redesign its Res F system to properly man many of those ships. There used to be a time when the RCNVR was the backbone of the Navy at a significantly reduced manpower cost. Yes, there are technical skills which require full-timers but many functions can be done by part-timers so that when the need is there, so will be the ships and crews.
We did that with the Gate Boats and the MCDVs until fairly recently. I'm not sure if it changed due to staffing levels and/or the desire to create more Reg F billets, or whatever.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
715
Points
1,040
I understand all that but we have limited funds to build a Navy with. We do need small ships for those various functions, but a well designed and well armed ship can perform all of them while a limited purpose ship cannot fight. At the end of the day this is the Canadian "Armed" Forces. It's the last line we have to defend Canada's interests.

When it comes down to it, a limited purpose ship is a wasted hull. Our problem is that because of the cost of the weapon systems we cheap out and spend the money on a few extra hulls which it seems we're unable to properly man anyway.

I appreciate the need for good range and seakeeping but that doesn't exclude a a weapons platform. IMHO, every ship we own should be able to carry and use anti-ship, anti-sub and anti-air weapon systems.

And, while I'm on my high horse, like the Army, the Navy needs redesign its Res F system to properly man many of those ships. There used to be a time when the RCNVR was the backbone of the Navy at a significantly reduced manpower cost. Yes, there are technical skills which require full-timers but many functions can be done by part-timers so that when the need is there, so will be the ships and crews.

🍻
My thinking is along the same lines as FJAG on this. It's exactly BECAUSE we have a limited budget that we need to try and get the most out of each hull we put in the water. We have a huge coastline to defend, and while many may feel there are no direct threats to Canadian maritime sovereignty at the moment, as we all know warships are not an asset that can quickly be procured if and when we DO have the need.

I'd prefer to see a combatant ship designed to be able to fulfil non-combatant roles where possible rather than having ships specifically designed only for those non-combatant roles. Unlike the US (or Russia and China) we don't have a large enough fleet to be able to separate the two roles/platforms without giving up combat power which you may end up needing (and not be able to add that capability quickly enough when it is required). It's the same reason we should be arming our fighters and MPAs with anti-ship missiles so we have that combat capability should it suddenly be needed.

This isn't to minimize the importance of the non-combat roles either. There are very important missions that the Kingston (and AOPS) do and can perform. But if the RCN doesn't have the capacity to do both these missions and combat missions then maybe serious consideration should be given to devolving some of these missions to other government agencies (CCG, DFO, RCMP, etc.). Perhaps they could be done even more cheaply if the ships they use don't have to be built to the same military standards as an RCN ship designed to do the same non-combat roles would be.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,644
Points
1,110
What about a K130 - I think someone mentioned this earlier, but I didn't see the downside.



26knots
Variable Weapon suite.
2500+ NM range
MH or UAV capable
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,139
Points
1,060
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?
An MCM may very well have to clear mines/channels while under threat from other weapon systems. I will argue that at least it is being built to accommodate significant counter measures and some armaments as it is likely to be necessary in future conflict zones. (Covering a minefield with hidden anti-ship missiles would make sense.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,644
Points
1,110
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.
If it wears a uniform it is a target.
Lot of bad people would love a soft target.
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.
Your idea of heavily armed is probably different from mine - but what sort of range do you want?
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?
My K130 went over your crew by 10 - but I do think it's a good idea for a starting point.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
278
Points
880
An MCM may very well have to clear mines/channels while under threat from other weapon systems. I will argue that at least it is being built to accommodate significant counter measures and some armaments as it is likely to be necessary in future conflict zones. (Covering a minefield with hidden anti-ship missiles would make sense.
Not really, most MCM ships are lightly armed and will remain so especially in regards to anti-ship missiles. When I was operating with the Baltic MCM group earlier this year a few of the ships had some man portable anti air but most either had .50 Cals or a 25mm. Most of the time the ships would be covered by larger NATO vessels.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,139
Points
1,060
Not really, most MCM ships are lightly armed and will remain so especially in regards to anti-ship missiles. When I was operating with the Baltic MCM group earlier this year a few of the ships had some man portable anti air but most either had .50 Cals or a 25mm. Most of the time the ships would be covered by larger NATO vessels.
Clearing and protecting domestic channels there would be no threat, but forcing a channel near a hostile shore could be a very nasty business and reading historical accounts the minesweepers were always heavily targeted.
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,492
Points
1,140
You're the consultant, you tell me. Again fun is the point of this. I think everyone likes a good wishlist. Let's do it with the constraints that I listed above.
First question.
The UK is retiring all MCM ships this decade and relying on ‘automated systems’ going forward or utilizing ‘ships of opportunity’ and onboarding the necessary equipment to run MCM operations from these ships and the US using 15 dedicated LCS’s for MCM capability.
My question would be, why don’t we explore the same route that the Brits are? No more MCM ships.

Maritime-executive.com/article/unmanned-systems-set-to-replace-all-royal-navy-mine-warfare-vessels

“The new systems find mines, even in the worst conditions, five to ten times faster than our current ships do,” said First Sea Lord Admiral Tony Radakin.

As for the true OPV vessel,
River Class Batch 2 has no UAV capabilities, no helo hanger but has a small crew (34) and accommodation for up to 60, decent range (5,500nmi) and good speed at 24knts.

The NZ Protector Class has a hanger for a helo, slightly better range than the River Class, space for 3 20ft seas containers, a 16ton crane and again no UAV capabilities and awesome sea state abilities.

Arafava Class from Australia is the newest class, being built right now, small range of 4,000nmi, no hanger for helo, a ‘utility’ deck, light UAV capabilities with space for a single UAV, crew of 40, space for another 20 and Link 16 network

Lastly, the new French POM OPV’s look interesting. Range 5,500nmi, speed of 24knts, crew of 30 and space for another 23, stern ramp, flight deck for UAVs.

I’m in favour of one that has a helo hanger that can be used for housing multiple UAV’s with a potential focus on ASW and maybe some anti-ship capabilities. The hanger can accommodate a Cyclone if needed. Go with a stern ramp and 16ton crane and 20ft sea containers. Add either a recycled 57 as they become available or if we continue to want to bring a knife to any potential gun fight, the BAE Mk 38, I would add in a phalanx or a modern equivalent to deal with UAV’s as they will be an issue going forward.

Oh, and I would write into this MCDV procurement the need for additional Cyclones (8-10) and mark-46 torpedoes. There should be 10-12 new OPV and no MCM, fellow the British and French route on this.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,877
Points
1,060
What about a K130 - I think someone mentioned this earlier, but I didn't see the downside.



26knots
Variable Weapon suite.
2500+ NM range
MH or UAV capable

Hang around long enough and you may see the downside.

The 1.3 degree starboard list and excess weight, which emerged during testing in September, means the ship is now close to the limit of its design parameters



Anybody know if the Danish outfit OMT is still involved with Irving Shipyards? OMT brought the Absalon, Huitfeldt and the StanFlex Modular system to the market.

They specialized in economically building ships fitted for, not with.

In a low threat environment (domestic shore patrols) they could supply lots of cheap hulls into which systems could be plugged. Ships operating in high threat environments would stow the necessary, very expensive, systems.

If the high threat level became generalized then the government could fork out the big bucks for the systems and the extra rounds.


But, initially, the government buys 15 seaworthy hulls at a build price of 500,000,000 a piece - Call it 8,000,000,000 the set.

It can then go all in on one vessel with all the toys and a 25mm on the rest. As realworld threats increase buy the appropriate systems and bring them aboard. Don't fit all 15 in 2030 with systems that were mature in 2000 to fight battles in 2050.

Keep churning out cheap hulls and turn them over quickly. Design them to accommodate any combination of systems.

Just because the USN worked its magic and screwed up a perfectly acceptable concept doesn't mean it isn't workable. It has already been proven in fleet service by the Danes.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
278
Points
880
Clearing and protecting domestic channels there would be no threat, but forcing a channel near a hostile shore could be a very nasty business and reading historical accounts the minesweepers were always heavily targeted.
Well we were on the border of Russian waters and we had the appropriate cover. Even the Russians came out to say hi. Point is that all ships are not armed the same. MCM operates within a larger group that has that protection for us.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,303
Points
1,010
MCM's are always lightly armed because their job is extremely dangerous. They are more likely to be blown up by a mine than enemy action. So in that regard, you don't waste money, resources, and manpower on something that has a low survivability rate. MCM's generally also operate within permissive(ish) environments because of this. UXV's are likely changing the calculus on survival rates, which means you can have a specialized UXV mothership. But when you have a specialist ship the cranes and control stations for UXV displace the guns and missiles.

I understand all that but we have limited funds to build a Navy with. We do need small ships for those various functions, but a well designed and well armed ship can perform all of them while a limited purpose ship cannot fight. At the end of the day this is the Canadian "Armed" Forces. It's the last line we have to defend Canada's interests.

When it comes down to it, a limited purpose ship is a wasted hull. Our problem is that because of the cost of the weapon systems we cheap out and spend the money on a few extra hulls which it seems we're unable to properly man anyway.

I appreciate the need for good range and seakeeping but that doesn't exclude a a weapons platform. IMHO, every ship we own should be able to carry and use anti-ship, anti-sub and anti-air weapon systems.

And, while I'm on my high horse, like the Army, the Navy needs redesign its Res F system to properly man many of those ships. There used to be a time when the RCNVR was the backbone of the Navy at a significantly reduced manpower cost. Yes, there are technical skills which require full-timers but many functions can be done by part-timers so that when the need is there, so will be the ships and crews.

🍻
Hulls are never wasted. There is no such thing. Different tools for different jobs.

It's a fallacy to think that every ship should be armed for all weapon systems. Do you arm a GWagon with a 120mm or use a tank to just drive out to check wire? That would be a terrible waste of resources, in some cases a fatal one.

Ships are the same.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
9,214
Points
1,160
MCM's are always lightly armed because their job is extremely dangerous. They are more likely to be blown up by a mine than enemy action. So in that regard, you don't waste money, resources, and manpower on something that has a low survivability rate. MCM's generally also operate within permissive(ish) environments because of this. UXV's are likely changing the calculus on survival rates, which means you can have a specialized UXV mothership. But when you have a specialist ship the cranes and control stations for UXV displace the guns and missiles.


Hulls are never wasted. There is no such thing. Different tools for different jobs.

It's a fallacy to think that every ship should be armed for all weapon systems. Do you arm a GWagon with a 120mm or use a tank to just drive out to check wire? That would be a terrible waste of resources, in some cases a fatal one.

Ships are the same.

Dude, you don't get 'The Army', do you? :)

toast the knowing mad max fury road GIF
 

Maxman1

Full Member
Reaction score
288
Points
930
Hang around long enough and you may see the downside.




Wrong ship. That's the F125 Baden-Württemberg-class frigates, which aren't even made at the same shipyards as the Braunschweig.
 
Top