• 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
70
Points
380
Let me extract this paragraph about RAN's new Arafura class Patrol vessels.


One path that the government should consider urgently is the possibility of ‘up-gunning’ the offshore patrol vessel fleet. These vessels are about to enter service, have sufficient space to carry lethal capability and can be produced quickly and at scale. One option could include installing the Kongsberg naval strike missile launcher that is already being acquired for larger surface combatants. Anti-submarine warfare sensors are another possibility. The RAN can’t afford the luxury of operating 1,800-tonne vessels with no warfighting capability.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
Read the article and watched the hypohysterical video (that's the content creators name on youtube...)

Their job is to patrol the domestic waters, and a 25-30mm is easily enough capability that they need for the job they are required to do. Adding weapons would change their job description and the RAN, like the RCN use their patrol boats for patrol, not for warfighting. If one wanted to increase the OPV's capabilities in their role then the first order of business should be to improve their sensors.

OPV's are not networked into the battlespace through LINK and a CMS. NSM have an over the horizon capability and if you can't use that capability then there is no point in attaching that missile to the ship. You would be reliant on another non-organicasset to find/fix the target for you, and then share that info with you.

Now you are spending a lot of money on a small ship that's job is to sail around chasing illegal fishermen and just knowing what's going on in domestic waters.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,774
Points
1,160
Read the article and watched the hypohysterical video (that's the content creators name on youtube...)

Their job is to patrol the domestic waters, and a 25-30mm is easily enough capability that they need for the job they are required to do. Adding weapons would change their job description and the RAN, like the RCN use their patrol boats for patrol, not for warfighting. If one wanted to increase the OPV's capabilities in their role then the first order of business should be to improve their sensors.

OPV's are not networked into the battlespace through LINK and a CMS. NSM have an over the horizon capability and if you can't use that capability then there is no point in attaching that missile to the ship. You would be reliant on another non-organicasset to find/fix the target for you, and then share that info with you.

Now you are spending a lot of money on a small ship that's job is to sail around chasing illegal fishermen and just knowing what's going on in domestic waters.
A better solution if it's determined that there is a need to provide more firepower than your existing warships can provide would be to use containerized weapon systems that can be directed and controlled by the CSCs. You could then place these on the deck space of an MCDV (or replacement), AOPS, JSS, USV or any commercial ship drafted into service. No need to spend the money to upgrade a non-combatant for a capability for which the ship isn't intended to have.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
99
Points
380
All that being said, with respect to the MCDV, I would still like to see an RWS mounted, given where we send them and the likelihood that they will be shouldering more load as CPF’s become unavailable. Maybe if even 3 out of the 6 on each coast mounted a 25mm for certain deployments.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,694
Points
1,160
OPV's are not networked into the battlespace through LINK and a CMS. NSM have an over the horizon capability and if you can't use that capability then there is no point in attaching that missile to the ship. You would be reliant on another non-organicasset to find/fix the target for you, and then share that info with you.

Now you are spending a lot of money on a small ship that's job is to sail around chasing illegal fishermen and just knowing what's going on in domestic waters.
Is there room, power and stability to add more sensors to the AOP's?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
Just heard CRCN on MCDV replacement; didn't say much but said he expected something around 2000 tons, with somewhat more armament.
Yep ties in by fix. @Stoker and I have both heard similar. No project office opened yet but the capability people are looking at it already. I'm expecting AOPS there will be max 8 ships in a replacement class as AOPS will be doing a lot of that domestic work.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
Is there room, power and stability to add more sensors to the AOP's?
Yes. They already have TRAPS up and running. You can also embark a full Clearance Dive team with hyperbaric chamber and multiple UUV's/boats for a MCM Det. Other things are being looked at as potential options, including a radar change for better air ops.
 

TacticalTea

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1,175
Points
960
Yep ties in by fix. @Stoker and I have both heard similar. No project office opened yet but the capability people are looking at it already. I'm expecting AOPS there will be max 8 ships in a replacement class as AOPS will be doing a lot of that domestic work.
Yeah hearing him reminded me of you saying as much in here.

You mean max 8 MCDV replacements?
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,774
Points
1,160
Just heard CRCN on MCDV replacement; didn't say much but said he expected something around 2000 tons, with somewhat more armament.
I'm hoping that the "somewhat more armament" includes at least some missile capability rather than just a gun. 8 x Naval Strike Missiles and Sea Ceptor would be nice but even 4 x NSMs and a pair of RAM launchers for point self defence would at least give it some limited combat capability.
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,917
Points
1,140
I'm hoping that the "somewhat more armament" includes at least some missile capability rather than just a gun. 8 x Naval Strike Missiles and Sea Ceptor would be nice but even 4 x NSMs and a pair of RAM launchers for point self defence would at least give it some limited combat capability.
Pretty sure the old Bonnie Bofor's are still around. Look to them being dusted off....
Add them to the bow, a BAE 20mm chain gun to the stern and the obligatory pair of 50's on the port and aft, and voila, better armed than the Kingston's. Make them 21knts and they'll out race them as well.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,778
Points
1,090
Pretty sure the old Bonnie Bofor's are still around. Look to them being dusted off....
Add them to the bow, a BAE 20mm chain gun to the stern and the obligatory pair of 50's on the port and aft, and voila, better armed than the Kingston's. Make them 21knts and they'll out race them as well.
I’m all for using material efficiently, but at this point I think the Bonnie’s Bofor’s can safely go to a museum.

Also, I’m pretty sure they came from another ship before her…no?
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,152
Points
1,040
Just heard CRCN on MCDV replacement; didn't say much but said he expected something around 2000 tons, with somewhat more armament.
Not sure what he's smoking, but the AOPs are down on the strategic plan as an MCDV replacement, and we actually don't have anything even on paper to start it.

They would need to update the white paper first, then get preliminary funding, and figure out who would even run it. Might be a good one to stack onto VSY but I think CCG has dibs on production for after JSS.

CRCN can ask for whatever he wants from Santa, but that's not actually his call. Probably a good example of where it's good to work on the VCDS side of things to understand what L1 does what before they get up to there.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,152
Points
1,040
As an aside, if we are going to spool up another replacement project, the subs is probably a higher priority item. A lot of the AOPs folks will likely plug existing holes in JSS or CSC (or move to CCG), with others planning to retire.

I'm a big fan of the MCDVs, but we should have started a replacement project a decade ago, but was deliberately not done as part of NSS when GoC said we needed an AOPS. We already don't a realistic plan to stop the attrition and actually crew AOPs, JSS and CPFs/CSC, so no idea where a next gen MCDV crew would come from on top of that (especially if they make the ship bigger and want it to do more; you can only automate so much).
 

TacticalTea

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1,175
Points
960
Yes. Unless the staffing issue turns around not sure we can even crew those. But by the time they will be in the water staffing will be decided one way or another.
Indeed, I thought even your "max 8" was quite optimistic!
Not sure what he's smoking, but the AOPs are down on the strategic plan as an MCDV replacement, and we actually don't have anything even on paper to start it.

They would need to update the white paper first, then get preliminary funding, and figure out who would even run it. Might be a good one to stack onto VSY but I think CCG has dibs on production for after JSS.

CRCN can ask for whatever he wants from Santa, but that's not actually his call. Probably a good example of where it's good to work on the VCDS side of things to understand what L1 does what before they get up to there.
Yes, I was somewhat surprised to hear about MCDV replacement, although it did seem as though sub replacement was closer on the horizon.

I don't see MCDV replacement as a priority given we have the AOPVs, are understaffed, and are increasingly looking at drones, some of which could potentially take up some of the MCDV's roles.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,152
Points
1,040
Indeed, I thought even your "max 8" was quite optimistic!

Yes, I was somewhat surprised to hear about MCDV replacement, although it did seem as though sub replacement was closer on the horizon.

I don't see MCDV replacement as a priority given we have the AOPVs, are understaffed, and are increasingly looking at drones, some of which could potentially take up some of the MCDV's roles.
Honestly think the CRCN is playing way outside his swimlane all over the place, and way overestimating his actual authority.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,621
Points
1,210
When and where did he say that MCDV replacement is in the cards?
 
Top