• 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)

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
5,376
Points
1,260
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.

Sounds like the difference between a Class 3 Navy and the six classes below it on the Grove system.

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.

Also a sign of where things have got to, I guess....
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,452
Points
1,040
In the early 2000s, we could project more naval power further on Earth than any country besides the US, UK and France. Fact.
And we are paying for our sins today. The ships were ridden hard and put away wet. With no plan to deal with the ramifications. So here we are.
Sounds like the difference between a Class 3 Navy and the six classes below it on the Grove system.
I think Class 3 is the ring to reach for. It's possible and what Canada needs to be able to do given our geographic location.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,381
Points
1,160
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.
I'm obviously not suggesting that Canada could or would fight China on its own. What I am suggesting is that the proposed fleet composition plan (below) doesn't really give the RCN the ability to do much beyond our coalition commitments in the case of a major war.

Say that in the case of a conflict with China that Russia takes that as their opportunity to also start a conflict while the West is already heavily engaged in a major Pacific war. Canada deploys one Task Group to the Pacific against China and manages to scrape together another one for the Atlantic to face the Russians. That's over half of our combatant fleet and both of our AORs committed.

No argument that a TG of CSC's is potent and will get us a seat at the table during a conflict but I don't think we should kid ourselves and think that it won't still be at the kid's table. The US will take the lead in any major conflict and there is no guarantee that the deployment of our Task Groups will be where they best suit our national interests over where the US deems they will best suit their interests as far as the overall war aims are concerned.

We are a three ocean nation and have the World's longest coastline. During a war with China and/or Russia there will be potential threats to our maritime domain. With over half of our combatants potentially committed and not taking into account the real possibility (probability) that our fleet will suffer combat losses (as well as ships being out of action for refit, maintenance, etc.) we wouldn't have much combatant capability left to protect our huge coastlines, replace our losses or surge additional ships to the combat theaters if required.

My preferred option would be to replace the Kingston's with an equal number of small combatants and increase the size of our submarine fleet (as well as adding uncrewed capabilities), but the Navy types on here are already suggesting that we may not even be able to meet the manning requirements of the proposed future fleet.

If that is really the case then this is why I'm suggesting that the RCN begin looking into uncrewed capabilities sooner rather than later. It's not a matter of uncrewed capabilities INSTEAD of the planned crewed capabilities. It's simply a recognition that if expanding the crewed fleet to the size required to meet our national requirements isn't possible due to manning constraints then the obvious alternative is to look at uncrewed capabilities to make up the gap instead.

The future fleet composition plan:
15 CSC/CPF (replacing as new capabilities come online)
2 AOR (+1 leased perhaps)
4 Submarines (gov't has leaned into life extension)
6 AOPS


Kingston class replacement and numbers are not known for sure. I doubt it will be a one for one as AOPS do the OPV mission as well. 6-9 replacements is what I'm thinking.

The RCN Task Group concept is to have one high readiness task group available at all times. That's 4 CSC/CPF and 1 AOR (with airdets, but that might be a critical pinch of pers as well. 6 airdets available seems a massive stretch). That's in combination from both coasts (2 CSC one coast 2 another coast). The rest of the ships are working up to high readiness, coming off of it or in a maintenance period. They might be available for sailing but not task group operations without some time.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
85
Points
380
I had a question, regarding task groups, but I believe it may have been just answered. I was wondering why we don’t do more of it now. A TG centered around ASTERIX with 2 east coast frigates and 2 west coast. Maybe even a VIC for spice. On paper, it looks like we have all the pieces…but is it a reflection of ship availability/condition, personnel shortages or just no mission that makes it necessary? Or is it limitations based around ASTERIX? Where she can go or can she support a command staff etc?? Truly curious.
 

TangoTwoBravo

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,412
Points
1,110
Sounds like the difference between a Class 3 Navy and the six classes below it on the Grove system.



Also a sign of where things have got to, I guess....
My impression is that the RCN circa 2004 had a mix of then fairly new CPFs along with two other key capabilities: dedicated C2/AAW ships and AORs. Those C2/Anti-Air Warfare Ships, though, were new wine in very old bottles and the AORs were equally ancient. The C2 and AORs self-divested and the RCN was left with what it had. ASTERIX was a good stop-gap!

I sailed as a member of Fleet Staff a few years ago for an exercise. A CPF can embark a Fleet Staff (modernized Ops Room was set up for it - not sure if that is every CPF?) but the ship I was in did not have an air det embarked and we took berths/workspaces that they usually occupied. That CPF and embarked Commodore/Staff did command a multi-national TG for a short time. AORs were from other nations as ASTERIX was heading to the Pacific.

Regarding MCDVs, my impression is that they are very useful ships. The MCDV offers a relatively efficient means of showing the flag in economy of effort missions and they have been doing some useful mine countermeasures exercises with allies as well. Certainly worthy of replacement, but hopefully we don't try to make them into mini-Frigates bristling with armament.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,758
Points
1,090
The thing is, we DID refit our ships after the 2005-06 timeframe.

The MLR/FELEX program. Except that it wasn't actually a refit, it was an OPS room refresh with updated sensors. The hulls and engineering plants were basically ignored as a part of the MLR. To the point that they're still installing new CAT generators and such onboard.

I highly agree - the MCDV's are extremely useful ships, and very cost effective, both in terms of personnel and fuel.

I've previously posted in here about replacements for them - and there's a multitude of options that exist around the world.

We need to pick one, and start ordering them now....so that they show up before we wear out the MCDVs...and if we get ships that are slightly more capable (think having a 2D RADAR and LINK connection) along with a point defense capable weapons system (RAM?) then you've got something that can take on some of the load for the CPF's and extend their lives a bit.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,019
Points
1,040
Sounds like the difference between a Class 3 Navy and the six classes below it on the Grove system.
Interesting comment and made me look that up a bit more.

When Grove did his analysis in 1990 he ranked Canada as a Level 4 - Average Navy with Regional Strength and Power Projection such that it has the ability to project power into a theatre adjacent to its strategic theatre of interest.

The Brazilian Authors in the attached article, in 2018, lightly criticize his analysis of being subjective and not supported by empirical data. They go on to discuss naval classification systems (including Groves) and then go on to set some weighted criteria and do an analysis of the navies of North and South America against a ten level scale where 10 is the strongest navy. In their case, Canada comes out at Level 6 - Regional Naval Power With Partial Power Projection In The Region.

:unsure:
 

Attachments

  • 87981-Article Text-363704-2-10-20181209.pdf
    248.3 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,452
Points
1,040
Interesting comment and made me look that up a bit more.

When Grove did his analysis in 1990 he ranked Canada as a Level 4 - Average Navy with Regional Strength and Power Projection such that it has the ability to project power into a theatre adjacent to its strategic theatre of interest.

These Brazilian authors, in 2018, lightly criticize his analysis of being subjective and not supported by empirical data. They go on to discuss naval classification systems (including Groves) and then go on to set some weighted criteria and do an analysis of the navies of North and South America against a ten level scale where 10 is the strongest navy. In their case, Canada comes out at Level 6 - Regional Naval Power With Partial Power Projection In The Region.

:unsure:
When on the Groves scale where 1 is the USN we ranked 4. And on this other scale where 10 is the USN we ranked 6. counts on fingers That's the same score... even the descriptive text basically says the same thing.

Some of these analysis comes from how one actually operates their navy and whether you actually exercise that capability. Canada regularly exercises power projection well outside its region. Brazil might have an amazing navy with a carrier and a large fleet but they are not regular participants in international operations or alliances. That kind of knocks you down a bit if you don't ever prove you have a capability by never using it.

BTW your link is broken somehow...
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,019
Points
1,040
When on the Groves scale where 1 is the USN we ranked 4. And on this other scale where 10 is the USN we ranked 6. counts on fingers That's the same score... even the descriptive text basically says the same thing.
Numerically there are two spots between 1 and 4 but three between 10 and 6 but that said, I agree that the description is similar.
Some of these analysis comes from how one actually operates their navy and whether you actually exercise that capability. Canada regularly exercises power projection well outside its region. Brazil might have an amazing navy with a carrier and a large fleet but they are not regular participants in international operations or alliances. That kind of knocks you down a bit if you don't ever prove you have a capability by never using it.

BTW your link is broken somehow...
Sorry about that. It was a downloaded pdf. I've changed things above to an attachment rather than a link and do so again here. The whole thing probably makes more sense when you can actually read the article. 😉

🍻
 

Attachments

  • 87981-Article Text-363704-2-10-20181209.pdf
    248.3 KB · Views: 4

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
146
Points
710
The thing is, we DID refit our ships after the 2005-06 timeframe.

The MLR/FELEX program. Except that it wasn't actually a refit, it was an OPS room refresh with updated sensors. The hulls and engineering plants were basically ignored as a part of the MLR. To the point that they're still installing new CAT generators and such onboard.

I highly agree - the MCDV's are extremely useful ships, and very cost effective, both in terms of personnel and fuel.

I've previously posted in here about replacements for them - and there's a multitude of options that exist around the world.

We need to pick one, and start ordering them now....so that they show up before we wear out the MCDVs...and if we get ships that are slightly more capable (think having a 2D RADAR and LINK connection) along with a point defense capable weapons system (RAM?) then you've got something that can take on some of the load for the CPF's and extend their lives a bit.
"We need to pick one, and start ordering them now"--any Canadian shipyards left to build them? No gov't will want to buy abroad no matter how much sense it might make in terms of costs and delivery speed.

Mark
Ottawa
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,620
Points
1,040
@NavyShooter the new Cat generators are only the start; the piping, valves, hull and wiring are all near the end of life. Hell of a thing to see a 300 class valve fail because the body eroded a hole through several inches of brass, but here we are.

Honestly the CPFs are in worse shape than the 280s at end of life; they at least had full baseline refits up until around the TRUMP MLR (that acronym didn't age well); at retirement the majority of the firemains were only 20-25 years old. Even the newest CPF is beyond that now.

The new Cat DGs are pretty great though; COTs product with an 80% common rail system available at ports across the planet, with an improved enclosure that makes it easier to work on and thousands in service. Pretty much all of the bidders would have been great, but partial to the happy sunflower yellow.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,758
Points
1,090
@Navy_Pete I see the stuff coming back to the warehouse for RP from NDQAR and the fleet. I know the state of the bits that come back for 'repair and overhaul'...it's a sad state.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,620
Points
1,040
@Navy_Pete I see the stuff coming back to the warehouse for RP from NDQAR and the fleet. I know the state of the bits that come back for 'repair and overhaul'...it's a sad state.
That's best case! Guess how many things come back missing major components. Why you would return a pump assembly without the pump, I will never know.

Don't blame anyone on the ship though; when you run them hard at 30-50% HR missing key people, they can only shoulder so much.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,758
Points
1,090
Or how about dropping not one but two pumps....only ones available in the fleet...apparently giving the new kid without a zoom boom ticket the job of loading it onto the flight deck isn't a great idea....
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3,437
Points
1,260
@NavyShooter the new Cat generators are only the start; the piping, valves, hull and wiring are all near the end of life. Hell of a thing to see a 300 class valve fail because the body eroded a hole through several inches of brass, but here we are.

Honestly the CPFs are in worse shape than the 280s at end of life; they at least had full baseline refits up until around the TRUMP MLR (that acronym didn't age well); at retirement the majority of the firemains were only 20-25 years old. Even the newest CPF is beyond that now.

The new Cat DGs are pretty great though; COTs product with an 80% common rail system available at ports across the planet, with an improved enclosure that makes it easier to work on and thousands in service. Pretty much all of the bidders would have been great, but partial to the happy sunflower yellow.

My understanding the CPFs were only designed to be a 25 year ship. And the intention was to begin the replacement design and contacting as the CPFs were finishing up production.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,237
Points
1,210
My understanding the CPFs were only designed to be a 25 year ship. And the intention was to begin the replacement design and contacting as the CPFs were finishing up production.
Ha ha ha! Yep, the tall foreheads somewhere in the bowls of government decided that once the last frigate left Saint John they could just shut it all down eh? Meanwhile 280's and AOR's were already on the icy step and about to fall and break their hips. In all seriousness I doubt that there was any plan to start the design of the frigate replacement in the 1990's.

We're a nation of the deaf, led by the blind and advised by the dumb.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,452
Points
1,040
Ha ha ha! Yep, the tall foreheads somewhere in the bowls of government decided that once the last frigate left Saint John they could just shut it all down eh? Meanwhile 280's and AOR's were already on the icy step and about to fall and break their hips. In all seriousness I doubt that there was any plan to start the design of the frigate replacement in the 1990's.

We're a nation of the deaf, led by the blind and advised by the dumb.
The '90s I remember were all about fighting the deficit and constitutional crisis. Everything else was secondary to purposes.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,237
Points
1,210
The '90s I remember were all about fighting the deficit and constitutional crisis. Everything else was secondary to purposes.
Oh for sure, Force Reduction Plan anyone? But a senior bureaucrat or backroom boy with some foresight could have thought..."hmm, we keep this capability going and spread the cost over 40 years or we shut it down and spend 10x the amount to get a third of the capability."

Oh who am I kidding, those types of long range thinkers are rooted out and reprogrammed within months of joining the hive mind.
 
Top