• 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)

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
45
Points
380
Well, just found today a patrol ship which combines the stern ramp with a crane for containers by placing them under the pad, which is provided with hatches. Don't really know if this is a useful configuration, for instance to use a containerized TAS (TRAPS) there will be some 10-12 meters between the container and the stern. For a SIGINT container the antenna needs to be relocated. For a containerized UAV (ok, guys, RPV is also accepted) it doesn't looks easy, either, to place the UAV on the pad if the container is just below the hatch.

Actually this OPV could be added to the list: crew of 40 (+30 acc./mission), 20-23 kts, 12000 nm range (?!!), 30 days endurance.
[Fassmer 80 OPV pdf ]
 
Last edited:

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
866
Points
1,060
Looking at the range of options available, and the fact that the three big yards are getting filled up with vessels over 4000 tonnes, maybe there is room to move the NSS 1000 tonne small boat limit north to 2500 tonnes?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
976
Points
1,010
Likely by the time the MCDV replacement project goes ahead VSY will no longer have any new ships on the docket.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
59
Points
280
Not saying that this is my idea of a great solution, but I was looking at the USCG Fast Response Cutter recently. It's about 400t, has a stern ramp, 2500kt range and is capable of 28+ kts. It's also equipped with a 25mm and a pair of .50 cal. I'm wondering if an option would be to procure 10 of these for use in essentially our waters and OP CARIBBE. I know they're a version of our CCG HERO class, which has had some issues, but wondering if they'd be up to task for the above mentioned missions. Then, maybe you build AOPS 7-8 and instead of turning them over to the CCG they get kept by the RCN for use everywhere else we've been discussing.

The advantages are smaller crew, cheap to operate and cheap to build. Sentinel-class cutter - Wikipedia

I'm not certain how capable these smaller ships are in our North Atlantic, though.
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
376
Points
860
Well, just found today a patrol ship which combines the stern ramp with a crane for containers by placing them under the pad, which is provided with hatches. Don't really know if this is a useful configuration, for instance to use a containerized TAS (TRAPS) there will be some 10-12 meters between the container and the stern. For a SIGINT container the antenna needs to be relocated. For a containerized UAV (ok, guys, RPV is also accepted) it doesn't looks easy, either, to place the UAV on the pad if the container is just below the hatch.

Actually this OPV could be added to the list: crew of 40 (+30 acc./mission), 20-23 kts, 12000 nm range (?!!), 30 days endurance.
[Fassmer 80 OPV pdf ]
We can’t consider that, the guns too big.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,112
Points
940
Not saying that this is my idea of a great solution, but I was looking at the USCG Fast Response Cutter recently. It's about 400t, has a stern ramp, 2500kt range and is capable of 28+ kts. It's also equipped with a 25mm and a pair of .50 cal. I'm wondering if an option would be to procure 10 of these for use in essentially our waters and OP CARIBBE. I know they're a version of our CCG HERO class, which has had some issues, but wondering if they'd be up to task for the above mentioned missions. Then, maybe you build AOPS 7-8 and instead of turning them over to the CCG they get kept by the RCN for use everywhere else we've been discussing.

The advantages are smaller crew, cheap to operate and cheap to build. Sentinel-class cutter - Wikipedia

I'm not certain how capable these smaller ships are in our North Atlantic, though.
As you mention that's basically a slightly larger Hero Class, not the sort of vessel you want to do long voyages in. I call them R Class 2.0 Hero-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia

Now the Aussies went even further with the Armidale-class patrol boat - Wikipedia

 

Cronicbny

Member
Reaction score
18
Points
230
Not saying that this is my idea of a great solution, but I was looking at the USCG Fast Response Cutter recently. It's about 400t, has a stern ramp, 2500kt range and is capable of 28+ kts. It's also equipped with a 25mm and a pair of .50 cal. I'm wondering if an option would be to procure 10 of these for use in essentially our waters and OP CARIBBE. I know they're a version of our CCG HERO class, which has had some issues, but wondering if they'd be up to task for the above mentioned missions. Then, maybe you build AOPS 7-8 and instead of turning them over to the CCG they get kept by the RCN for use everywhere else we've been discussing.

The advantages are smaller crew, cheap to operate and cheap to build. Sentinel-class cutter - Wikipedia

I'm not certain how capable these smaller ships are in our North Atlantic, though.
The range and 5 day endurance are not suitable, unfortunately.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
59
Points
280
I rather thought that might be the case. I was just brainstorming if it were possible given shorter patrol missions and the ability rotate in and out multiple ships. Say, send 3 or 4 on OP CARIBBE with a rotation in and out of port etc.

Again, probably not the best bet, anyway.
 

RedFive

Member
Reaction score
69
Points
480
As you mention that's basically a slightly larger Hero Class, not the sort of vessel you want to do long voyages in. I call them R Class 2.0 Hero-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia

Now the Aussies went even further with the Armidale-class patrol boat - Wikipedia

Having spoken to RCMP Shiprider members who have gone out on the Hero's with the CCG, the cost cutting and Canadianization of the vessels pretty much ruined what was supposed to be a good design. The primary complaints were the deletion of the sea keeping ailerons, making them terrible to be aboard even in moderate waters, and the poor construction quality from Irving. Apparently both of these issues have been discussed in the media.

I for one was not surprised to hear this.
 

Cronicbny

Member
Reaction score
18
Points
230
I rather thought that might be the case. I was just brainstorming if it were possible given shorter patrol missions and the ability rotate in and out multiple ships. Say, send 3 or 4 on OP CARIBBE with a rotation in and out of port etc.

Again, probably not the best bet, anyway.
Missions like CARIBBE require long "on station" times, as the AO/Patrol Box is usually quite far out to sea (think days of transit) to maximize surveillance. Even once "on top" and successful in an interdiction, the process can take many hours to days. We tend to even stretch the limits of endurance for the KIN Class IOT remain ONSTA.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,691
Points
1,010
I still like the K130

1-K130corvette.jpg
The corvettes have a continuous maximum speed of over 26kt and a cruising range of more than 2,500nm. The displacement is about 1,580t, overall length 88m and breadth 13.2m. The K130 corvettes have an endurance of seven days or, with tender support, 21 days.

*from what I have read - the endurance is based solely on field consumption at high speeds, and for the MH.
If you aren't normally running a MH on it - you don't the fuel or AirDet pers, which should stretch the legs of it a tad.
.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
701
Points
1,040
I still like the K130

View attachment 66938
The corvettes have a continuous maximum speed of over 26kt and a cruising range of more than 2,500nm. The displacement is about 1,580t, overall length 88m and breadth 13.2m. The K130 corvettes have an endurance of seven days or, with tender support, 21 days.

*from what I have read - the endurance is based solely on field consumption at high speeds, and for the MH.
If you aren't normally running a MH on it - you don't the fuel or AirDet pers, which should stretch the legs of it a tad.
.
Usually food, fuel, and things like garbage storage are the practical limitations, but with our crewing shortages you also run into fatigue as well. If it was shiny, new and working it wouldn't be so bad, but when you spend of your off-watch time fixing things, you get worn out pretty quick. Not unusual for some key pers to occasionally get ordered to get their head down (or for the XO to get the CO's shakes instead). Even on a relatively good 12 day stretch lots of folks just kind of collapse the first night in port and sleep for 8 hours (or more).

Operating a helo won't really impact your ship range though; they use a separate marine grade aviation fuel (F-44 aka JP5) instead of the marine diesel the ships run on, and usually if you have empty bunks someone usually fills them. In best case, it's trainees that need sea time but can fill a useful function, worse case it's some kind of VIP rider that needs constant babysitting and has unreasonable demands.

With the 'optimized' crew numbers we fall behind on preventative maintenance pretty quickly, and that inevitably turns into corrective maintenance, so it's difficult to keep a normal schedule for any of the technicians when you are below the crew levels the ships were designed for.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
59
Points
280
Missions like CARIBBE require long "on station" times, as the AO/Patrol Box is usually quite far out to sea (think days of transit) to maximize surveillance. Even once "on top" and successful in an interdiction, the process can take many hours to days. We tend to even stretch the limits of endurance for the KIN Class IOT remain ONSTA.

Definitely a much better tasking for something with legs, then. Should be a good fit for the AOPS range, I'd imagine. Thx for the insight, it's good to have a better idea of how these missions are executed.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
223
Points
680
Definitely a much better tasking for something with legs, then. Should be a good fit for the AOPS range, I'd imagine. Thx for the insight, it's good to have a better idea of how these missions are executed.
Kingston Class was only meant to have a endurance of 14 days, our only limitation was food and fuel. We got creative with portable deepfreezes, stocking the entire cold room, dairy stores full. Eventually we could go a month and even longer. Eventually fuel and stores was required. AOPS burns about 2% of her fuel a day and a shit load of it around 700 Cums. Without going below 40% around 28 days endurance.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
223
Points
680
Well, just found today a patrol ship which combines the stern ramp with a crane for containers by placing them under the pad, which is provided with hatches. Don't really know if this is a useful configuration, for instance to use a containerized TAS (TRAPS) there will be some 10-12 meters between the container and the stern. For a SIGINT container the antenna needs to be relocated. For a containerized UAV (ok, guys, RPV is also accepted) it doesn't looks easy, either, to place the UAV on the pad if the container is just below the hatch.

Actually this OPV could be added to the list: crew of 40 (+30 acc./mission), 20-23 kts, 12000 nm range (?!!), 30 days endurance.
[Fassmer 80 OPV pdf ]
That's actually a pretty nice ship, good range and endurance. I would however redesign the back end and eliminate the stern ramp and have a payload area to stage modular payloads such as TRAPS. Probably go with the ice class option.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,408
Points
1,040
Kingston Class was only meant to have a endurance of 14 days, our only limitation was food and fuel. We got creative with portable deepfreezes, stocking the entire cold room, dairy stores full. Eventually we could go a month and even longer. Eventually fuel and stores was required. AOPS burns about 2% of her fuel a day and a shit load of it around 700 Cums. Without going below 40% around 28 days endurance.
There's probably lots of room for a 2 month supply of IMPs.

😁
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,691
Points
1,010
That's actually a pretty nice ship, good range and endurance. I would however redesign the back end and eliminate the stern ramp and have a payload area to stage modular payloads such as TRAPS. Probably go with the ice class option.
You don't like your boat crews do you?
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
188
Points
530
Could be why its been living the good life in Tampa the last few years
 
Top