Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Stoker]

Some of the old auxiliaries got sold off, but we're officially never going with a reef society again after having to take a few back and then disposing of them properly and also spend millions more on others to support artificial reefs.

With the changing environmental regs usually by the time we're used them up there is something like PCBs or asbestos that needs cleaned up first.

I have experience with the HDW and Kingston Classes. There is a large delta on the maintenance requirements and operating costs of the Kingston Class and HDW class obviously given the size difference and complexity. I think we will have challenges maintaining both of these classes through the maintenance model that we currently using. If anything keeps the Kingston Class around is the low costs of operating the ships and maintaining them and any replacement should be designed with that in mind. I know we are burning through the maintenance money for AOPS.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I have experience with the HDW and Kingston Classes. There is a large delta on the maintenance requirements and operating costs of the Kingston Class and HDW class obviously given the size difference and complexity. I think we will have challenges maintaining both of these classes through the maintenance model that we currently using. If anything keeps the Kingston Class around is the low costs of operating the ships and maintaining them and any replacement should be designed with that in mind. I know we are burning through the maintenance money for AOPS.

I fully agree with you, it's an order of magnitude more costly to run and operate the AOPs, and they can't replace each other's capabilities, but I think the reality is we have to give up a lot of somethings to run the AOPs and JSS, and even with winding down a CPF or two and some subs we can't afford to keep all the MCDVs going as well (or crew them).

I think the loss of knowledge from the MWAV contract changing over and the delays there will also hurt them as well.

We would have been better off building something new closer to the MCDVs instead of AOPs but government sent we want icebreakers and then attached 'coastal' to the name, so in the brains of the politicians that's two 'coastal' classes.

 

[GK .Dundas]

We would have been better off building something new closer to the MCDVs instead of AOPs but government sent we want icebreakers and then attached 'coastal' to the name, so in the brains of the politicians that's two 'coastal' classes.

"You mean the AOP isn't a Patrol boat like a big old whatcha call them ..a RIB ???"
I suspect that the above sums up the problem with our political leadership.

 

[Stoker]

I fully agree with you, it's an order of magnitude more costly to run and operate the AOPs, and they can't replace each other's capabilities, but I think the reality is we have to give up a lot of somethings to run the AOPs and JSS, and even with winding down a CPF or two and some subs we can't afford to keep all the MCDVs going as well (or crew them).

I think the loss of knowledge from the MWAV contract changing over and the delays there will also hurt them as well.

We would have been better off building something new closer to the MCDVs instead of AOPs but government sent we want icebreakers and then attached 'coastal' to the name, so in the brains of the politicians that's two 'coastal' classes.

For sure we could of just built a couple and then spend the rest on a river class like replacement. Thales hired many of the Lavlin ships managers but I think they overextended themselves and didn't have the subcontractors agreements in place. I was asked if i was interested in a job. You are right something has to give. I vote for several of the worse off CPF's to go, although that won't be hard to find.

 

[Navy_Pete]

For sure we could of just built a couple and then spend the rest on a river class like replacement. Thales hired many of the Lavlin ships managers but I think they overextended themselves and didn't have the subcontractors agreements in place. I was asked if i was interested in a job. You are right something has to give. I vote for several of the worse off CPF's to go, although that won't be hard to find.

Curious to see what will happen with the CPFs; the baseline estimate is now up at $500m, which is insane. Even with a few of them gone, still well short people but will definitely help.

 

[Stoker]

Curious to see what will happen with the CPFs; the baseline estimate is now up at $500m, which is insane. Even with a few of them gone, still well short people but will definitely help.

Wow that's nuts, I wonder what will be the point where they'll have to stop. We're seeing the effects of the cuts down here now.

 

[NavyShooter]

Um, prices I've heard on 2 of them is actually significantly higher than 500.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Um, prices I've heard on 2 of them is actually significantly higher than 500.

Yeah, I think that's without arisings and without the coming changes to the work packages to try and extend the op cycle (and to fix things while they are shut down for 2 years)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Some of the old auxiliaries got sold off, but we're officially never going with a reef society again after having to take a few back and then disposing of them properly and also spend millions more on others to support artificial reefs.

With the changing environmental regs usually by the time we're used them up there is something like PCBs or asbestos that needs cleaned up first.

With 30 some ships to dispose of, reefing will renter the picture. The only ship recycler on this coast just got shut down, I think there are only 1-2 legt outfits left back East. When the ARSBC went about sinking HMCS Annapolis, Environment Canada changed it's regulatory process twice during the project(grrrr). The RCN also certified she was PCB free, but PCB's were found in the wiring, which the navy had to pay to remove. The reality is that if you are going to prep the vessel to meet the new Hong Kong Convention rules, then the cost of prepping for reefing is about the same. One advantage of reefing is that you can seal up all the asbestos into a certified oil free space and let it go down with the ship. That saves you big bucks as you reduce transport and disposal cost.
The society will no longer take the ship but will advise on meeting the cleanup regs, find the sink location and look after the EC/DFO and TC permitting requirements. Plus design a good sink plan, including controlling flooding and explosive charge placement. Another advantage is that the recycling of components off the ship high grades the more valuable metals and eliminates almost all of the carbon emissions that you get from cutting a ship up. Also FN groups are generally onboard (well not literally) with sinking of them thanks to the proven benefit to rockfish and other reef dwellers.

 

[Navy_Pete]

With 30 some ships to dispose of, reefing will renter the picture. The only ship recycler on this coast just got shut down, I think there are only 1-2 legt outfits left back East. When the ARSBC went about sinking HMCS Annapolis, Environment Canada changed it's regulatory process twice during the project(grrrr). The RCN also certified she was PCB free, but PCB's were found in the wiring, which the navy had to pay to remove. The reality is that if you are going to prep the vessel to meet the new Hong Kong Convention rules, then the cost of prepping for reefing is about the same. One advantage of reefing is that you can seal up all the asbestos into a certified oil free space and let it go down with the ship. That saves you big bucks as you reduce transport and disposal cost.
The society will no longer take the ship but will advise on meeting the cleanup regs, find the sink location and look after the EC/DFO and TC permitting requirements. Plus design a good sink plan, including controlling flooding and explosive charge placement. Another advantage is that the recycling of components off the ship high grades the more valuable metals and eliminates almost all of the carbon emissions that you get from cutting a ship up. Also FN groups are generally onboard (well not literally) with sinking of them thanks to the proven benefit to rockfish and other reef dwellers.

Still, won't happen again, we'll either sell them on or scrap them ourselves. Lot more work and cost to prep them for reefing than just dispose of them. The small auxiliaries at the end of life might find a second home somewhere else, but for MCDVs, CPFs etc they'll be used for alongside trainers for a bit then run through a shredder.

Aside from being able to make sure it's demilitarized and environmental disposal requirements are met, was also a big morale impact seeing something clapped out and rusting to dust, and despite best intentions the scope and costs of doing the reefing is outside of what the volunteer groups can manage. Unless the GoC actually does the reefing (or a sinkex like Huron) I can't see it happening, at least until a decade after everyone involved in the last few soup sandwhiches (particularly on the East Coast) is retired so that people think it's a good idea again.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Still, won't happen again, we'll either sell them on or scrap them ourselves. Lot more work and cost to prep them for reefing than just dispose of them. The small auxiliaries at the end of life might find a second home somewhere else, but for MCDVs, CPFs etc they'll be used for alongside trainers for a bit then run through a shredder.

Aside from being able to make sure it's demilitarized and environmental disposal requirements are met, was also a big morale impact seeing something clapped out and rusting to dust, and despite best intentions the scope and costs of doing the reefing is outside of what the volunteer groups can manage. Unless the GoC actually does the reefing (or a sinkex like Huron) I can't see it happening, at least until a decade after everyone involved in the last few soup sandwhiches (particularly on the East Coast) is retired so that people think it's a good idea again.

You be surprised the cost of scrapping has shot up and it's hard even for a legitimate scrapper to cover costs. Plus the government is still on the hook for all PCB and hazamat removal prior to either selling to a scrapper or to have them made into a reef. I have been involved in Reefing as a regulator and now as part of the ARSBC. Canada has some 30+ ships to dispose of and even though they are not signatures to the agreements, they abide by them, which makes the government responsible for the full lifecycle, unless they can pass them on to another government.
I know of one legitimate scrapper on the East Coast, out here there is nobody that can handle ships, as all scrap has to be reduced to 2mx2m which is a lot of the costs.
Scrappers and reefers can work together, the scrapper high grades the ship for the more desirable metal and components. The ship needs to be opened up to allow it to sink properly, which the ARSBC is likley the most experienced reefer in this regard. Asbestos does not need to be removed as it is not considered a hazard underwater. The big cost is removal of anodes and any bottom paint newer than 10 years, as those may require drydocking.

 

[daftandbarmy]

You be surprised the cost of scrapping has shot up and it's hard even for a legitimate scrapper to cover costs. Plus the government is still on the hook for all PCB and hazamat removal prior to either selling to a scrapper or to have them made into a reef. I have been involved in Reefing as a regulator and now as part of the ARSBC. Canada has some 30+ ships to dispose of and even though they are not signatures to the agreements, they abide by them, which makes the government responsible for the full lifecycle, unless they can pass them on to another government.
I know of one legitimate scrapper on the East Coast, out here there is nobody that can handle ships, as all scrap has to be reduced to 2mx2m which is a lot of the costs.
Scrappers and reefers can work together, the scrapper high grades the ship for the more desirable metal and components. The ship needs to be opened up to allow it to sink properly, which the ARSBC is likley the most experienced reefer in this regard. Asbestos does not need to be removed as it is not considered a hazard underwater. The big cost is removal of anodes and any bottom paint newer than 10 years, as those may require drydocking.

I've dived on some of their projects and they're pretty good objectives.

And just deep and dangerous enough to (hopefully) keep the hordes of novices away.

Chaudiere

The Chaudière was the first Destroyer Escort ship converted to a reef by the ARSBC. She was purchased from the Department of National Defence for – wait for it – one dollar, plus seven cents...

artificialreefsocietybc.ca

 

[Navy_Pete]

You be surprised the cost of scrapping has shot up and it's hard even for a legitimate scrapper to cover costs. Plus the government is still on the hook for all PCB and hazamat removal prior to either selling to a scrapper or to have them made into a reef. I have been involved in Reefing as a regulator and now as part of the ARSBC. Canada has some 30+ ships to dispose of and even though they are not signatures to the agreements, they abide by them, which makes the government responsible for the full lifecycle, unless they can pass them on to another government.
I know of one legitimate scrapper on the East Coast, out here there is nobody that can handle ships, as all scrap has to be reduced to 2mx2m which is a lot of the costs.
Scrappers and reefers can work together, the scrapper high grades the ship for the more desirable metal and components. The ship needs to be opened up to allow it to sink properly, which the ARSBC is likley the most experienced reefer in this regard. Asbestos does not need to be removed as it is not considered a hazard underwater. The big cost is removal of anodes and any bottom paint newer than 10 years, as those may require drydocking.

Having been involved in both scrapping and reefing it's a not brainer for us to scrap everything. Still cheaper to scrap, and so much is now controlled goods, ITAR etc demilitarizing it beforehand is just not feasible (at least for combatants).

With how much high quality brass and copper is onboard as well as the equipment density we actually do reasonably well on that offsetting a lot of the environmental remediation, but the big reason is because literally everything gets run through a giant metal shredder as part of the disposal so demil by destruction is part of the process.

Otherwise that would be a secondary, offsite process with a huge amount of tracking and accountability down to the (sometimes literal) nut and bolt level.

 

[OceanBonfire]

I was reading through the new edition of Canadian Defence Review when I saw some interesting information. The image below is low quality but it seems Vard has shown off a "new" Vigilance concept. I initially thought it was a reused old rendering but they did add a maple leaf to the funnel alongside the pennant number of an MCDV follow on. As far as I can tell, this model is unique and largely changed from the previous proposals. What looks to me like a Bofors 40mm Mk4 is added forward alongside perhaps a 30mm gun mount adjacent to the mast? UAV deck and multi-mission deck has been changed around alongside the small boat arrangement. Grain of salt as per usual but potentially more relevant when taking into consideration the next point.

View attachment 84815

They have an article talking about a "new Canadian Multi-Mission Corvette (CMC) program" which apparently exists according to them and the CDR.



View attachment 84818

Vard also has this apparent program listed on their current DND projects. I haven't heard of this program being announced even though it has been rumored for years at this point. Did Vard just leak the program officially or is this just their marketing?

Leak? Meh. The project used the be called OPV (Offshore Patrol Vessel), then changed to Canadian Multi-Role Modular Corvette (CMMC, with actually 2 Ms and called "modular" because we want to emphasize the modular payload). We're actually trying to find an acronym that sounds "fighty". It's gonna be a corvette though. Stay tuned as it's still very early.

 

[Underway]

Leak? Meh. The project used the be called OPV (Offshore Patrol Vessel), then changed to Canadian Multi-Role Modular Corvette (CMMC, with actually 2 Ms and called "modular" because we want to emphasize the modular payload). We're actually trying to find an acronym that sounds "fighty". It's gonna be a corvette though. Stay tuned as it's still very early.

So Australia's two tier fleet plan just more sneaky with less tabloids.

And here I was thinking we were going River Class style when we might be going more Multi Modular Patrol Corvette style. Interesting. The Euro project wants a Corvette not more than 3500 tons full load. That could easily be called a frigate tonnage. Not that I think we would go that big (still think 2000-2500 tons is probably the sweet spot depending on the on the requirements). Corvette in European classification is anything larger then a patrol boat (boat not ship) but smaller then a frigate. Given frigate tonnages are creeping up then its obvious that Corvette tonnages would also creep up.

Perhaps this is some indication of why the AOPS is going to the Antarctic. Show off the AOPS design to Chile and NZ as they have refit their warships with us previously, but also to perhaps increase that professional connection in hopes that they might want to sign onto a CMMC project.

The other thing is if its a Corvette the CMS330 may get a chance to live on past the lifetime of the frigates.

@OceanBonfire is there anything in the expected requirements that could indicate payload?

 

[quadrapiper]

So Australia's two tier fleet plan just more sneaky with less tabloids.

And here I was thinking we were going River Class style when we might be going more Multi Modular Patrol Corvette style. Interesting. The Euro project wants a Corvette not more than 3500 tons full load. That could easily be called a frigate tonnage. Not that I think we would go that big (still think 2000-2500 tons is probably the sweet spot depending on the on the requirements). Corvette in European classification is anything larger then a patrol boat (boat not ship) but smaller then a frigate. Given frigate tonnages are creeping up then its obvious that Corvette tonnages would also creep up.

Perhaps this is some indication of why the AOPS is going to the Antarctic. Show off the AOPS design to Chile and NZ as they have refit their warships with us previously, but also to perhaps increase that professional connection in hopes that they might want to sign onto a CMMC project.

The other thing is if its a Corvette the CMS330 may get a chance to live on past the lifetime of the frigates.

@OceanBonfire is there anything in the expected requirements that could indicate payload?

What's the minimum tonnage for a vessel that will presumably be out and about off Labrador and Haida Gwaii to be reasonably livable?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Leak? Meh. The project used the be called OPV (Offshore Patrol Vessel), then changed to Canadian Multi-Role Modular Corvette (CMMC, with actually 2 Ms and called "modular" because we want to emphasize the modular payload). We're actually trying to find an acronym that sounds "fighty". It's gonna be a corvette though. Stay tuned as it's still very early.

If by 'early' you mean completely unfunded, not in the DND future investment plan, and not on the NSS radar then yes, it's early. That's about 20 years out, and I can't see it actually happening as the GoC sees AOPs doing that role.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I've dived on some of their projects and they're pretty good objectives.

And just deep and dangerous enough to (hopefully) keep the hordes of novices away.

Chaudiere

The Chaudière was the first Destroyer Escort ship converted to a reef by the ARSBC. She was purchased from the Department of National Defence for – wait for it – one dollar, plus seven cents...

artificialreefsocietybc.ca

Its interesting Chaudière's gun is slewed to port, I expect gravity did that, but I also expected it to be locked in the harbor position.

 

[Underway]

What's the minimum tonnage for a vessel that will presumably be out and about off Labrador and Haida Gwaii to be reasonably livable?

MCDV's are 800ish tons and do it all the time. I can be uncomfortable in those places for even large ships though.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Couple thousand tons would be nice. Depending on the timing, you could recycle the HAL's main radars and some of its weapons systems (ESSM and 57 mm gun for instance).

But personally, I can't see this ever taking happening. I think it's a ploy by the RCN to shut up some of the army critics that lurk in these fora here on Milnet.ca and constantly want to arm every ship to the teeth.

I think they even came up with a name for the program, and an acronym to confuse everyone here: The program will be called Up Armed Constabulary Vessel, or UCAV.