• 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)

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,653
Points
1,140
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.
Why wouldn't you use smaller RPV's for that?
Operate them off a larger vessel which has a nice safe standoff.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,417
Points
1,160
Why wouldn't you use smaller RPV's for that?
Operate them off a larger vessel which has a nice safe standoff.

Meanwhile, on the subject of small boats... maybe we can get a deal from Uncle Sam? ;)


The Navy Wants To Get Rid Of Its Nearly Brand New Patrol Boats​

The Navy is looking to have all of its Mk VI patrol boats, the oldest of which it acquired just six years ago, decommissioned by the end of the year.​


The U.S. Navy is looking to divest its nearly-new Mk VI patrol boats, the oldest of which are just six years old, and has already begun laying the groundwork to do so. Barring an order to change course from President Joe Biden's administration or intervention by Congress, the service plans to remove all 12 of these boats, examples of which are based in Guam, as well as in the continental United States, and forward-deployed in the Persian Gulf, from service before the end of the year.

An unclassified General Administration (GENADMIN) message that The War Zone reviewed said that the Navy is presently looking to get rid of the Mk VIs by the end of the 2021 Fiscal Year, or September 30 of this year. The GENADMIN came from the office of Vice Admiral James Kilby, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfighting Requirements and Capabilities, also known as N9, and is dated February 5, 2021. A source familiar with the state of the program says that Naval Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC), to which all of these patrol boats are presently assigned, could begin retiring them as early as next month.

message-editor%2F1613170285515-mkvis.jpg

USN
A pair of Mk VI patrol boats from the detachment in Guam visit Yap in the Federated States of Micronesia in 2019.

The GENADMIN says that the plans for the Mk VIs are "in accordance with approved budgetary decisions." The message also says "this plan will be adjusted if necessary based on subsequent execution year decisions made by leadership or as required by Congressional action."
When contacted, the Navy would not confirm or deny any plans to divest the Mk IVs or any timeline for doing so. The service did confirm, indirectly, that a proposed decision regarding the future of these boats was part of the upcoming President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2022, or PB22. A public version of the annual budget request from the Executive Branch to Congress is typically released in February.

"The PB22 budget request is pre-decisional," Navy Lieutenant Rob Reinheimer, a spokesperson for the service, told The War Zone. "We will not comment on future budgetary decisions until the budget request is submitted to Congress later this year."

 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,653
Points
1,140
Meanwhile, on the subject of small boats... maybe we can get a deal from Uncle Sam? ;)


The Navy Wants To Get Rid Of Its Nearly Brand New Patrol Boats​

The Navy is looking to have all of its Mk VI patrol boats, the oldest of which it acquired just six years ago, decommissioned by the end of the year.​


The U.S. Navy is looking to divest its nearly-new Mk VI patrol boats, the oldest of which are just six years old, and has already begun laying the groundwork to do so. Barring an order to change course from President Joe Biden's administration or intervention by Congress, the service plans to remove all 12 of these boats, examples of which are based in Guam, as well as in the continental United States, and forward-deployed in the Persian Gulf, from service before the end of the year.

An unclassified General Administration (GENADMIN) message that The War Zone reviewed said that the Navy is presently looking to get rid of the Mk VIs by the end of the 2021 Fiscal Year, or September 30 of this year. The GENADMIN came from the office of Vice Admiral James Kilby, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfighting Requirements and Capabilities, also known as N9, and is dated February 5, 2021. A source familiar with the state of the program says that Naval Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC), to which all of these patrol boats are presently assigned, could begin retiring them as early as next month.

message-editor%2F1613170285515-mkvis.jpg

USN
A pair of Mk VI patrol boats from the detachment in Guam visit Yap in the Federated States of Micronesia in 2019.

The GENADMIN says that the plans for the Mk VIs are "in accordance with approved budgetary decisions." The message also says "this plan will be adjusted if necessary based on subsequent execution year decisions made by leadership or as required by Congressional action."
When contacted, the Navy would not confirm or deny any plans to divest the Mk IVs or any timeline for doing so. The service did confirm, indirectly, that a proposed decision regarding the future of these boats was part of the upcoming President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2022, or PB22. A public version of the annual budget request from the Executive Branch to Congress is typically released in February.

"The PB22 budget request is pre-decisional," Navy Lieutenant Rob Reinheimer, a spokesperson for the service, told The War Zone. "We will not comment on future budgetary decisions until the budget request is submitted to Congress later this year."

It's heavier armed than an AOPS...
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,396
Points
1,060
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.
Actually I said counter measures and some weapons. As I understand it dedicated MCM vessels are in very short supply in Western navies and we could not sustain many losses. So it makes sense that any in the front line of a conflict have some way of countering a threat, whether it's EW, Chaff dispensers, etc.
MCM for domestic use could easily be based on existing commercial hulls, to ensure important marine shipping routes are not blocked.
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
49
Points
380
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. (...)

BAE, Vard, Lurssen and Naval Group... Damen is missing, let me bring in its 1800 OPV (even though I'd rather like the 2400 or 2600 designs). A local version is being built in Malaysa.
She provides hangar for up to Sea King or NH90 helicopters, should not be very difficult to redesign for a Cyclone. Otherwise use griffons or similar sized aircraft.
[Damen 1800 pdf]

Crew of 46, 22 knots, 5000 nm range, 30 days endurance, space for 2 containers under heli-deck.

I would also like she had a crane and stern ramp, but it seems not so easy to include all our wishes. Tipycally one has to make the choice between a clear space after the helipad for one to three containers and a crane or the stern ramp (which I like almost as much as #Colin Parkinson).

cheers.
 
Last edited:

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
74
Points
380
BAE, Vard, Lurssen and Naval Group... Damen is missing, let me bring in its 1800 OPV (even though I'd rather like the 2400 or 2600 designs). A local version is being built in Malaysa.
She provides hangar for up to Sea King or NH90 helicopters, should not be very difficult to redesign for a Cyclone. Otherwise use griffons or similar sized aircraft.
[Damen 1800 pdf]

Crew of 46, 22 knots, 5000 nm range, 30 days endurance, space for 2 containers under heli-deck.

I would also like she had a crane and stern ramp, but it seems not so easy to include all our wishes. Tipycally one has to make the choice between a clear space after the helipad for one to three containers and a crane or the stern ramp (which I like almost as much as #Colin Parkinson).

cheers.
That Damen model is sweet. It seems to tick quite a few boxes.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
74
Points
380
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.
Curious about your assessment of the NZ PROTECTOR class having no UAV abilities. The ship incorporates a fully functional hangar for a full size manned helo. This should be more than adequate for any manner of either fixed wing or rotary UAVS.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,403
Points
1,040
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.
Except that we have thousands of vehicles and only a few dozen ships. If my GWagon came in at a quarter billion dollars I'd want it to do more than just drive around.

We bought a dozen MCDVs for $650 million in 1992 dollars which don't even have a 40mm anymore. The AOPS sports a 25mm. We only have two minesweeping modules for the 12 ships - Why not up arm the other ten?

The Iranians have motorboats with more complex weapon systems. It was a nice change to see the armament specs on the CSC for a change. I'd hate to see the next class of vessels go back down to weapon systems barely enough to protect them from a WBIED.

🍻
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
862
Points
1,040
It will be interesting to see what come out of the European Patrol Corvette program. Prototypes due in the 2026-2027 timeframe which might work well with the MCDV replacements. They're claiming a modular design under 3,000 tons, can support an NH-90 sized helicopter but with different hull dimensions, armaments, etc. based on the user's specific requirements. Plans include one version with a 10,000 nm range.

I fear though that as a multi-nation 'co-operative' development it will end up being too many compromises.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,907
Points
1,260
Why wouldn't you use smaller RPV's for that?
I'm pretty sure no one has used the term "RPV" since the 90s.

It's not incorrect, just that UxV (where x is air, ground, surface, sub-surface) or UxS (S for Systems) is more prevalent now. Although UAS is Uncrewed Aircraft Systems.

"Uncrewed" replaced "unmanned" in Canadian usage in May 2021.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,396
Points
1,060
We used that term in 1984 or 86 when I was part of the crew supporting RPV trials in Suffield
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,653
Points
1,140
I'm pretty sure no one has used the term "RPV" since the 90s.

It's not incorrect, just that UxV (where x is air, ground, surface, sub-surface) or UxS (S for Systems) is more prevalent now. Although UAS is Uncrewed Aircraft Systems.

"Uncrewed" replaced "unmanned" in Canadian usage in May 2021.
I like RPV - as it is just remotely piloted - I could put a Sailor who annoyed me on it - thus it isn't necessarily Unmanned ;)
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,843
Points
1,010
RPV is the official NATO designation. Which automatically means the US doesn't use it... Canada has for the most part switched our language to reflect that fact. It's far more accurate if one wants to be pedantic. An Uninhabited Air Vehicle is also a missile. Or a bullet for that matter.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,177
Points
1,060
Except that we have thousands of vehicles and only a few dozen ships. If my GWagon came in at a quarter billion dollars I'd want it to do more than just drive around.

We bought a dozen MCDVs for $650 million in 1992 dollars which don't even have a 40mm anymore. The AOPS sports a 25mm. We only have two minesweeping modules for the 12 ships - Why not up arm the other ten?

The Iranians have motorboats with more complex weapon systems. It was a nice change to see the armament specs on the CSC for a change. I'd hate to see the next class of vessels go back down to weapon systems barely enough to protect them from a WBIED.

🍻


How much is a FOO Tm, a FAC Tm, an STA Tm, a UAS tm, a Long Range Radar Tm, a Listening Station, a C4 Tm, a FRP, a tanker, a troop welfare facility, a medevac/casualty clearing station facility worth? Coupled with a Coastwatcher?

If they are operating in Canadian waters (Coastal, EEZ or SAR) are they at any more risk than NAVCan radars in peacetime?

Your 250,000,000 CAD G-Wagen is not just cruising the Cote de la Liesse. Even if it carried nothing but a couple of Mounties and a Fisheries Officer with side arms it would be a valuable part of the Canada's sovereignty protection scheme.

Most weaponry on board a ship is geared towards protecting the ship to maintain all those other capabilities. Local offence in defence of ships in convoy (to include Carriers) is probably next. Launching true offensive capabilities, like Long Range Precision Fires, ....



A ship has value just by being above the water in the middle of the ocean. It provides a point where people can survive. Everything else is gravy.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,177
Points
1,060
WRT the crane vs stern ramp debate? Is it possible to have one's cake and eat it too?

I know that Damen's Crossover ships are too large to be considered in the 1000 ton OPV category but their deck management system ..... might that be scalable?

Rather than a single swing point crane, a track and trolley gantry system?

crossovers-smart-use.jpg


With the ability of the beams to be extended beyond the hull to both port and starboard?

That would leave the stern clear for both a stern ramp and towed devices.
 
Top