• 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)

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,569
Points
1,040
? If there was a war with China the 'fleet composition' would be us integrated with the USN and being used as a screen. Planning our fleet around that kind of scenario.

Also the first strike would probably be a whack of cyber attacks on the banks and infrastructure, possibly the satelites as well.

In reality some ships that can operate with an international TG and do something useful is probably a best bet. To do that you need a well trained, fully staffed crew, things like a working Link (22?) and practice operating with other Navies. We could do more with less ships properly staffed then trying to operate a lot of ships with skeleton crews that aren't capable of actually fighting.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,445
Points
1,040
The above fleet composition plan looks a lot like a peacetime fleet plan.
Not really. It's based on the required capabilities that the RCN needs to do our various jobs, as well as the rotation of ships in and out of refit/repair/maintenance cycles.

It's a high value-added to have a RCN Task Group being able to operate on it's own. But as @Navy_Pete pointed out you can join other countries' task groups as necessary. Canada wouldn't fight alone. That's not realistic.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,360
Points
1,160
? If there was a war with China the 'fleet composition' would be us integrated with the USN and being used as a screen. Planning our fleet around that kind of scenario.

Also the first strike would probably be a whack of cyber attacks on the banks and infrastructure, possibly the satelites as well.

In reality some ships that can operate with an international TG and do something useful is probably a best bet. To do that you need a well trained, fully staffed crew, things like a working Link (22?) and practice operating with other Navies. We could do more with less ships properly staffed then trying to operate a lot of ships with skeleton crews that aren't capable of actually fighting.
Isn't the USN facing the same issues though? Outnumbered, operating further from home and technology getting closer to parity?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,445
Points
1,040
Isn't the USN facing the same issues though? Outnumbered, operating further from home and technology getting closer to parity?
If you believe the USN's press releases, those are issues the USN is facing.

Canada doesn't have the same issues. We aren't going to fight China on our own. If we fight China its with the USN, Japan and S. Korea. And then China has a numbers and technology problem.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,360
Points
1,160
If you believe the USN's press releases, those are issues the USN is facing.

Canada doesn't have the same issues. We aren't going to fight China on our own. If we fight China its with the USN, Japan and S. Korea. And then China has a numbers and technology problem.
I hope you're right (and hope we don't have to find out). Fifteen combatants for a 3 coast navy is a pretty thin capability.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,365
Points
1,140
If you believe the USN's press releases, those are issues the USN is facing.

Canada doesn't have the same issues. We aren't going to fight China on our own. If we fight China its with the USN, Japan and S. Korea. And then China has a numbers and technology problem.
Add England, France, Australia etc.

The US Mil build plan is to be able to fight people alone, but the goal is a coalition.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,478
Points
1,360
Arse.
Go catch a train….
They weigh around 12,000 tonnes so the CPF will now become the second largest machine I've operated 😁

But its hull is extra thick. Ramming speed!

Bust Through Ancient Greece GIF by Assassin's Creed's Creed
Works against Venezuelans apparently 🤣
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,360
Points
1,160
If you believe the USN's press releases, those are issues the USN is facing.

Canada doesn't have the same issues. We aren't going to fight China on our own. If we fight China its with the USN, Japan and S. Korea. And then China has a numbers and technology problem.
I'd also question whether this assumption that Canada will never have to fight on its own is the same attitude that led the Army to decide that it doesn't need Air Defence or significant Indirect Fire assets, etc. When our total naval combat platforms can be counted on your fingers and toes and the lead time to procure/replace them is measured in decades then I'd say that's a pretty big risk to take.

I'm not saying that Canada should ignore those capabilities or that we shouldn't work hard to integrate and coordinate our capabilities with those of our coalition allies, just that I think it would be wise to also work on those developing uncrewed/minimally crewed assets to augment those capabilities...and ideally the industry to support them (including being able to produce them quickly - compared to traditional naval assets - in time of a conflict).
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,445
Points
1,040
I'd also question whether this assumption that Canada will never have to fight on its own is the same attitude that led the Army to decide that it doesn't need Air Defence or significant Indirect Fire assets, etc. When our total naval combat platforms can be counted on your fingers and toes and the lead time to procure/replace them is measured in decades then I'd say that's a pretty big risk to take.

I'm not saying that Canada should ignore those capabilities or that we shouldn't work hard to integrate and coordinate our capabilities with those of our coalition allies, just that I think it would be wise to also work on those developing uncrewed/minimally crewed assets to augment those capabilities...and ideally the industry to support them (including being able to produce them quickly - compared to traditional naval assets - in time of a conflict).
I never said Canada won't fight on its own, I said that it won't fight China on its own. We have no reason aside from alliance obligations to fight China. They have nothing to do with our own geostrategic picture.

The single task group is a "fight on your own" formation. It's made up of 4 CSC which are the main warfighters and 1 AOR which will keep them strategically mobile. 6 Cyclones means you can have most of the time throughout the day with a helo in the air. Depending on CSC config it can be a power projection formation (loaded up with Land Attack munitions) or more likely a sea control formation with AAW missiles, ASuW missiles and good ASW systems.

What is interesting is that as a core you can now have allies attach themselves to your formation.

Is it a large navy? No? Is it achievable if a little aspirational? Yes.
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
70
Points
380
What I think the requirements should be:
  • min 25knots
  • 30mm main gun with independent EOIR sighting, 50 cal positions
  • ~40 crew
  • ability to take multiple sea can mission packages
  • mast high EOIR capability (similar to AOPS or JSS)
  • half decent range (~5000nm)
  • standard 9m multirole boat launch
  • extra space for 20 pers (dive team, UXV team, boarding team etc...)
  • Link 16 / IFF capability integral (not a FFNW situation)
  • flexible OPS space
  • improved radar so that it can detect some air targets (SCANTER 6002 as an example)
  • edit: Degaussing system...
On the nice to have part:
  • quiet ASW levels of noise to allow for TRAPS and mine warfare gear to better do their job
  • dynamic station keeping (may be mutually exclusive from quiet...)
  • flight deck for landing (not embarking ) Cyclone, operation of UAVs

I like a lot this type of exercise, please let me go a bit further...

For the requirements, would add:
  • 30 days endurance (food, supplies) min., best 40 days
  • decoys such as MASS (like the CPFs) or chaff and flares.
  • LRAD long range acoustic device

However, I do not agree with the speed (min. 25 knots). I understand that MCDV's 15 knots fall short. Let's increase speed a 50% to 22-23 knots (min.). Having the fast multirole boats, UAVs and possibly an helicopter, ... what do those 2-3 additional knots add (from 22-23 to 25)? Do they really make a difference for the missions now being accomplished by the Kingstons?

And here it is my gross propulsion estimates and proposal (based on a typical 2000 tons OPV):
  • 2.6-2.8 MW for propulsion up to 15 knots, plus up to 1.0 MW for all the other electric requirements of the ship.
  • Therefore total generation capacity a bit below 4 MW would suffice for speeds up to 15 knots.
  • In order to get it quiet at low speed, would use CODELAD propulsion, COmbined Diesel-ELectric And Diesel (i.e. one 1.4 MW EM per shaft).
  • for greater speeds let's add two diesel engines, 4-5 MW each (max. continuous rating). They would allow to reach either 24 knots (nearly 11 MW required only for propulsion) or 25 knots (just above 12 MW).

Nice to have: kind of cheap and simple (automatic fire control with FCR or EO system) air-defence system, like the Mistral missiles, either the naval Tetral (4 units) or Sadral (6 units) variants.

Sadral_sur_le_Dupleix_%28D641%29.jpg
KRI_Hasanuddin_UNIFIL_-_TETRAL_Cropped.jpg


"A close-in weapon system based on Mistral is a six-missile version called Sadral, with a stabilized rapid-reload launcher that is fully automated. A CSEE developed fire control director is integrated to the launcher, consisted of TV camera and FLIR. (...) the missiles are locked onto the target before being launched. A fully loaded Sadral launcher weighs 1080 kg, and the operator console weighs 280 kg." Mistral (missile) - Wikipedia


Finally, the Belgian-Dutch MCM vessel under construction relies a lot on the Inspector 125 boats (two of them), which, according to the link below, "has a length of about 12 meters, a beam of about 4 meters and a full load weight of 18.1 tons."
This is what the Future Belgian & Dutch MCM Motherships will Look Like - Naval News

What solution would you prefer...
a) a stern cargo deck (similar to that on the AOPS), for up to 3 containers and a crane? In this case the Inspector boat could be carried on the flight/working deck and deployed onto the water by mean of the crane.
b) a stern ramp (similar to the Arafura class) for one 12 m (40 foot) boat?
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
70
Points
380
If you believe the USN's press releases, those are issues the USN is facing.

Canada doesn't have the same issues. We aren't going to fight China on our own. If we fight China its with the USN, Japan and S. Korea. And then China has a numbers and technology problem.

... throw in UK and Australia, don't forget AUKUS. May be India as well?

Edited: sorry, repeated. KevinB has overtaken me.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,569
Points
1,040
I honestly can't think of a real scenario where Canada would be fighting anyone alone, let alone China. We've never done it before, and with the world being even more interconnected seems more unlikely than ever.

If Canada is fighting China, Russia, the US or the EU on our own, something has gone horribly wrong and +/- a few ships won't matter at all.
 

TacticalTea

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1,062
Points
960
You would have to stern RAS.

I seem to recall that someone told me it was actually trialed on one of our MCDVs.

But, I agree with you. Why RAS at all if your mission does not require it? Frigates and destroyers do, because they race around the TG and burn thru a tank of gas every 3 days. Aircraft Carriers (even nuclear ones) need JP5 every 3 days. Etc…
For an OPV that's meant to operate along the coasts of America, and perhaps occasionally cross the Atlantic... Indeed. Unnecessary.
Lots of discussion on what the Kingston Class replacement will look like. Whatever we end of getting will I doubt if the ships will need to RAS and that's tied to how long the ship can stay at sea. The ship will have unlimited water no issues there, should have a decent range so no RAS required, the issue would be how much food it can hold. The Kingston class was only meant to be out a max 14 days so it's capacity for dry, fresh and frozen is fairly small. We had to get creative to stretch that by at least 20 more days. Any replacement will need to take that into account along with space and ability to take parts and repair itself which for the Kingston class we struggled and will struggle with on this current long deployment. So while people worry if we can operate drones and operate a helo I wonder about the more mundane and practical considerations and capabilities. In my opinion as stated before we need to find a balance between cheap and capable and decide where and what we need these ships to operate.
I'd be very surprised if the MCDV replacement project was actually larger and more expensive (inflation adjusted) than the MCDVP.

We're in both a budget and human resource crunch, and we already have the AOPS that ups the ante from the MCDV.

I agree with your point on stores, food is the bottleneck in terms of range for MCDVs.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,478
Points
1,360
I never said Canada won't fight on its own, I said that it won't fight China on its own. We have no reason aside from alliance obligations to fight China. They have nothing to do with our own geostrategic picture.

The single task group is a "fight on your own" formation. It's made up of 4 CSC which are the main warfighters and 1 AOR which will keep them strategically mobile. 6 Cyclones means you can have most of the time throughout the day with a helo in the air. Depending on CSC config it can be a power projection formation (loaded up with Land Attack munitions) or more likely a sea control formation with AAW missiles, ASuW missiles and good ASW systems.

What is interesting is that as a core you can now have allies attach themselves to your formation.

Is it a large navy? No? Is it achievable if a little aspirational? Yes.
The whole single task group "fight on your own" is literally a thing so we can, in theory, form our own SAU or SAG in a Strike Group.

It makes a lot of sense if people actually understand tasks as it relates to Ship's and warfighting.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,445
Points
1,040
The whole single task group "fight on your own" is literally a thing so we can, in theory, form our own SAU or SAG in a Strike Group.

It makes a lot of sense if people actually understand tasks as it relates to Ship's and warfighting.
Honestly, its taking the lessons learned from the post-911 years when Canada did multiple rotations with 2-3 CPF, 1 Tribal and an AOR in the Indian ocean/Arabian sea for OP Apollo.

October 9 2001The first Canadian asset, HMCS HALIFAX, already at sea with the NATO Standing Force Atlantic, is directed to detach from this force and proceed to the Arabian Sea. Halifax begins counter-terrorism operations as part of Operation APOLLO on 2 November. Halifax is joined by two more frigates, a destroyer and a replenishment ship, bringing the Canadian Task Group to full strength.

This was a super valuable asset and did a lot of work with the USN, as escort to their LPH's and LPD which were flying Marines into Afghanistan.

When you show up with a fully self-sufficient task group, including command staff, you are a very valuable ally. If you can properly sustain that task group over multiple years you are an extremely valuable ally.

So that's where the fleet mix math comes from. 4 warships +1 AOR. Ideally, this means 3 AOR, and 15 warships to do that + other tasks. Then you have 6 AOPS +6-9 MCDV replacements for domestic work.

It also leaves room for a surge capability if necessary for short-term operations.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
6,164
Points
1,010
I recall one day during Op Apollo in the Arabian Sea when I was airborne in a Sea King. Around me was a Canadian Destroyer with Command Staff embarked; two Canadian frigates, each with a Sea King embarked; a Canadian AOR with a Sea King embarked; airborne besides myself was a second Sea King and a CP-140.

Think about that for a second: for literally years on end, Canada projected a Naval Task group to the far side of the world and controlled one of the most strategic pieces of ocean on the planet, as part of a coalition.

Canada has the ability to have strategic effect, if it puts it’s collective mind to it.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,445
Points
1,040
I recall one day during Op Apollo in the Arabian Sea when I was airborne in a Sea King. Around me was a Canadian Destroyer with Command Staff embarked; two Canadian frigates, each with a Sea King embarked; a Canadian AOR with a Sea King embarked; airborne besides myself was a second Sea King and a CP-140.

Think about that for a second: for literally years on end, Canada projected a Naval Task group to the far side of the world and controlled one of the most strategic pieces of ocean on the planet, as part of a coalition.

Canada has the ability to have strategic effect, if it puts it’s collective mind to it.
Just got an eyelash in my eye, nothing to see here... thanks for sharing that, it makes it real. A great example of what is possible going forward.

This deployment is what the Aussie's took as their gold standard example for their entire fleet revamp, given their own deficiencies at the time. They are obviously well ahead of us right now, and I think its important to look towards some of their ideas.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
6,164
Points
1,010
Just got an eyelash in my eye, nothing to see here... thanks for sharing that, it makes it real. A great example of what is possible going forward.

This deployment is what the Aussie's took as their gold standard example for their entire fleet revamp, given their own deficiencies at the time. They are obviously well ahead of us right now, and I think its important to look towards some of their ideas.
In the early 2000s, we could project more naval power further on Earth than any country besides the US, UK and France. Fact.
 
Top