• 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)

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,979
Points
1,060
Nautical term to confuse those of us non Navy types ;)
Confused Ginger GIF
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
Maybe ST(A) doesn't have red toques like ST(P) does? I've never seen anyone but Sea Training in orange floater coats.
When I was in Sea Training we had them, its possible that they fell out of favor. I believe the pilots also have orange floater coats.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,287
Points
1,360
The ship is closed up with "Special Sea Dutymen", meaning the ship is "fully" crewed(has enough to sail), and the pers who handle lines(part ship hands), staff steering, throttles, emergency steering, etc., are at their positions to take the ship alongside.

The folks in the orange floater coats are Sea Training, who are watching the crew, and assessing their ability to conduct operations safely.
So….an abundance of special seamen?
 

Rainbow1910

Guest
Reaction score
38
Points
280
With the MCDV's seemingly serviceable for at least another decade if not more, is there any existing domestic yards which could build her replacement? It would seem that Irving, Seaspan and Davie are busy into the foreseeable future and I am not familiar with any other shipbuilders in Canada which could be relied upon to build a ship very likely even larger than the MCDV's.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
489
Points
930
With the MCDV's seemingly serviceable for at least another decade if not more, is there any existing domestic yards which could build her replacement? It would seem that Irving, Seaspan and Davie are busy into the foreseeable future and I am not familiar with any other shipbuilders in Canada which could be relied upon to build a ship very likely even larger than the MCDV's.
Heddle would be delighted to obtain the government investment in their yards needed to build a replacement and they have the physical infrastructure to provide a good foundation upon which to build. They have dry docks in both Thunder Bay and St. Catharines that can handle the largest ship capable of transiting the Seaway and they are developing a skilled labour force as a result of being the only game in town for Canadian operators. they also have the interior space needed to build the modules.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,057
Points
1,040
With the MCDV's seemingly serviceable for at least another decade if not more, is there any existing domestic yards which could build her replacement? It would seem that Irving, Seaspan and Davie are busy into the foreseeable future and I am not familiar with any other shipbuilders in Canada which could be relied upon to build a ship very likely even larger than the MCDV's.
Depends on what the replacement looks like. I suspect that it will go to Vancouver Shipyards as by the time they are done with the JSS and Icebreaker their yard will have space.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
Seaspan won't have much space--they are supposed in 2030s to build a whole bunch of CCG vessels--2019 story:

Seaspan to build 16 more Coast Guard ships says Trudeau​


Mark
Ottawa
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
489
Points
930
Heddle would be delighted to obtain the government investment in their yards needed to build a replacement and they have the physical infrastructure to provide a good foundation upon which to build. They have dry docks in both Thunder Bay and St. Catharines that can handle the largest ship capable of transiting the Seaway and they are developing a skilled labour force as a result of being the only game in town for Canadian operators. they also have the interior space needed to build the modules.
one other thing, they are also on side with Seaspan so they could work in tandem with them, utilizing Seaspan's acquired design skills to avoid costly and time consuming duplications.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,611
Points
1,040
Part of NSS is that the main yards are specifically not allowed to bid on ships under 1000 tonnes; that would include MCDV replacements (unless they go bigger).

I real terms though we are running out of people so I can see some MCDVs and maybe a few CPFs parked.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,057
Points
1,040
Part of NSS is that the main yards are specifically not allowed to bid on ships under 1000 tonnes; that would include MCDV replacements (unless they go bigger).

I real terms though we are running out of people so I can see some MCDVs and maybe a few CPFs parked.
@Stoker I believe was saying that they are looking at about 1200-ton replacements with a similar crew size. Proper OPV.

CPF's parked for sure. East coast needs to lay one up IMHO.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
489
Points
930
@Stoker I believe was saying that they are looking at about 1200-ton replacements with a similar crew size. Proper OPV.

CPF's parked for sure. East coast needs to lay one up IMHO.
perhaps that isn't so bad. When troubles threaten it is far faster and easier to find and train a crew than it is to start from scratch building a ship.
 

Rainbow1910

Guest
Reaction score
38
Points
280
Part of NSS is that the main yards are specifically not allowed to bid on ships under 1000 tonnes; that would include MCDV replacements (unless they go bigger).

I real terms though we are running out of people so I can see some MCDVs and maybe a few CPFs parked.
Is this listed anywhere publicly? This is the first I've heard of such a thing.
Depends on what the replacement looks like. I suspect that it will go to Vancouver Shipyards as by the time they are done with the JSS and Icebreaker their yard will have space.
As somebody else said above, I think Seaspan is going to be busy for the foreseeable future. The 2021 Auditor General of Canada report regarding the National Shipbuilding Strategy has Seaspan listed as working on building Multi-purpose vessels for the CCG until the early 2040's, potentially even later as delays rack up. Irving is going to be busy with the CSC until nearly the 2050's and Davie will have their plate full for atleast a decade or more as well. Doesn't leave a lot of options available in regard to big yards.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,611
Points
1,040
Is this listed anywhere publicly? This is the first I've heard of such a thing.

Yes, it's in a few of the NSS annual reports, multiple press releases, SME opinion pieces etc. It's not a secret but one of those details that most reporters don't even twig to, so not frequently mentioned. It was a key part of the NSS plan to avoid carving out small shipyards that were capable of building things like the tugs etc as there are a few dozen smaller yards that can do that kind of work.

It's usually talked about as part of the 'Umbrella Agreement' and believe there was a recent article by either Tom Ring or Ian Mack that went into that a bit, as well as 'target state'. Both were critical in putting together the framework, getting the politicians onboard and figuring out the policy (that fit into our general procurement process) so understand it better than anyone.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
999
Points
1,040
Part of NSS is that the main yards are specifically not allowed to bid on ships under 1000 tonnes; that would include MCDV replacements (unless they go bigger).

I real terms though we are running out of people so I can see some MCDVs and maybe a few CPFs parked.
Is that not reason enough for us to be looking seriously (now) at uncrewed vessels (both surface and subsurface)?
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,611
Points
1,040
Is that not reason enough for us to be looking seriously (now) at uncrewed vessels (both surface and subsurface)?
Not for what we use the ships for, but it's a good application for a cargo ship going on a known route or similar applications with minimal flexibility required.

We use our ships like swiss army knives, so that needs people onboard to interpret the data and act on it. There are drones etc and the USN is working on an uncrewed combat ship for coastal patrols but that's way down the line when maybe AI is more advanced and can act independently to a certain extent. The current iteration of uncrewed ships are entirely remote controlled and monitored, so there is a crew, they just aren't on the actual ship, and rely heavily on sat uplinks for monitoring and control.

We already kind of suck at maintaining remote operation of crewed ships, which means you need more people to operate it safely, so not really sure we'd be able to keep up with the maintenance load of an uncrewed ship.

Instead of trying for a technological solution, we could try sucking less as an employer by driving people into the ground to do more with less. It's been a known issue that has been snowballing for my entire career, and we haven't done anything about it to date. We were fortunate ATH and PRE 'self-divested' without major incidents, and running down the same path with the 12 CPFs.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
4,064
Points
1,260
We use our ships like swiss army knives, so that needs people onboard to interpret the data and act on it.
There needs to be people to interpret the data (until AI/ML is good enough which is a long way away), but do they need to be onboard?

Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems have all of their crews elsewhere and interpret/act on data.

There are drones etc and the USN is working on an uncrewed combat ship for coastal patrols but that's way down the line when maybe AI is more advanced and can act independently to a certain extent. The current iteration of uncrewed ships are entirely remote controlled and monitored, so there is a crew, they just aren't on the actual ship, and rely heavily on sat uplinks for monitoring and control.

We already kind of suck at maintaining remote operation of crewed ships, which means you need more people to operate it safely, so not really sure we'd be able to keep up with the maintenance load of an uncrewed ship.
I'm not sure if it would need more people. For example, would a remotely crewed ship need the OOW to order the helmsman/throttleman? Or could they just make the course change?

However, this could drive the whole "crew rest" thing to the navies of the world. It's one thing to be standing watches on a ship while it's underway, it's a totally different thing to be staring at computer screens without the associated movement for 4 hours. It's much harder to maintain SA and alertness while doing the latter.

Instead of trying for a technological solution, we could try sucking less as an employer by driving people into the ground to do more with less. It's been a known issue that has been snowballing for my entire career, and we haven't done anything about it to date. We were fortunate ATH and PRE 'self-divested' without major incidents, and running down the same path with the 12 CPFs.
Agreed.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
999
Points
1,040
Not for what we use the ships for, but it's a good application for a cargo ship going on a known route or similar applications with minimal flexibility required.

We use our ships like swiss army knives, so that needs people onboard to interpret the data and act on it. There are drones etc and the USN is working on an uncrewed combat ship for coastal patrols but that's way down the line when maybe AI is more advanced and can act independently to a certain extent. The current iteration of uncrewed ships are entirely remote controlled and monitored, so there is a crew, they just aren't on the actual ship, and rely heavily on sat uplinks for monitoring and control.

We already kind of suck at maintaining remote operation of crewed ships, which means you need more people to operate it safely, so not really sure we'd be able to keep up with the maintenance load of an uncrewed ship.

Instead of trying for a technological solution, we could try sucking less as an employer by driving people into the ground to do more with less. It's been a known issue that has been snowballing for my entire career, and we haven't done anything about it to date. We were fortunate ATH and PRE 'self-divested' without major incidents, and running down the same path with the 12 CPFs.
Designing ships to be able to be swiss army knives is one of the reasons they are so expensive and we have so few of them. Having so few ships makes it hard to cover the vast areas that need to be patrolled and to have a combat ship where we need to have them.

USV/UUVs (for the time being anyway) should be used to fulfill specific roles which along with UAVs can expand our sensor net and allow us to concentrate our limited manned vessels where they need to be. There are technologies available now or coming online in the very near future which will allow us to do that.

Also, ship building and fleet design aren't things that are done quickly. We're talking about MCDV replacement technology here...possibly decades from now. AI capabilities then will be well beyond what is available now but we shouldn't wait until the technology is mature to begin thinking about these things. We should be seeing the writing on the wall as to where capabilities are heading and begin our planning, testing and restructuring to take advantage of these capabilities NOW...not when the MCDVs are ready to be paid off.

It's also not an either/or situation where starting down the path towards adding uncrewed capabilities to the RCN means we can't also deal with our existing manning issues. That would be like saying the Army can either get a GBAD capability OR an AT capability.
 
Top