Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,207
- Points
- 1,160
Mark VI patrol boat - Wikipedia
Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
- Thread starter x-grunt
- Start date
Weinie
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,343
- Points
- 1,140
Ok. Let's get some.Mark VI patrol boat - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I was thinking 'if' we built an MCDV replacement 10yrs down the road, more or less along the same lines as the current MCDV - what are some improvements that could be made? (
Wouldn't be the first time we've bought kit & found a purpose for it after, these would be good times! Feature some of these with some catchy PR, would help boost recruiting
I don't care what the rational heads say, I agree! Let's just wait until next year, when the US Navy divests itself of them & we can acquire them for dirt cheap (If they don't go to the USCG, which I hope they do.)Ok. Let's get some.
Wouldn't be the first time we've bought kit & found a purpose for it after, these would be good times! Feature some of these with some catchy PR, would help boost recruiting
- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 880
I like how they let O-3s command them, that's pretty cool...
I realize they aren't MCDV replacements, though. Maybe useful for NST?
I realize they aren't MCDV replacements, though. Maybe useful for NST?
Back to mcm and unmanned tools, many of you must have seen this recent article, may be not...
www.navylookout.com
...and this, older one about Venari-85
This one also lacks hangar for a cyclone and stern ramp, but the work area independent of the heli-pad seems nice.
Autonomous systems – the future of Royal Navy mine warfare | Navy Lookout
www.navylookout.com
...and this, older one about Venari-85
This one also lacks hangar for a cyclone and stern ramp, but the work area independent of the heli-pad seems nice.
- Reaction score
- 13,431
- Points
- 1,260
Those things are probably about ORCA-sized (armed, mind you) and we let LT(N) command them...
- Reaction score
- 4,663
- Points
- 1,040
Excellent find. This is in the realm of what I think the RCN should be looking at for MCM. Some systems autonomous, others tethered and a mothership. This makes me wonder if the AOPS could do this role. It has plenty of space and cranes. So then the question, if any ship with cranes and space can carry the robotic systems and boats needed for MCM is there a need for a specialized MCM vessel anymore.Back to mcm and unmanned tools, many of you must have seen this recent article, may be not...
Autonomous systems – the future of Royal Navy mine warfare | Navy Lookout
...and this, older one about Venari-85
This one also lacks hangar for a cyclone and stern ramp, but the work area independent of the heli-pad seems nice.
And if that's the case maybe the RCN needs to look at a specialized OPV instead of a MCM vessel.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,449
- Points
- 1,010
Actually, they are about a third the size of the Orcas, at about 70 tons displacement to the Orca's 210. And at 86 feet long by 20 wide for a draft of four feet, they are only slightly bigger than the old YAG's used to be. Also, a section of them is commanded by a LT, but most of them are actually "skippered" by E-7 and E-8's.
With the YAG's, we used to also have that: PO2 and above could attend and pass a tender command and become OIC of those boats when not used for training. And, yes, it did occur, not just a theoretical. I have been out in winter on the West coast with three or four YAG's to do community relations and day cruises for schools, and we crewed the YAG's with three person crew, with only one or two of them out of four having an officer on board and the others being OIC'd by PO2 and PO1's. I think they made the Orca's too large and sophisticated (in terms of equipment) for this to take place today. Shame.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,314
- Points
- 1,160
I read somewhere that one of the reasons that the USN was getting rid of them was that they are maintenance hogs.Ok. Let's get some.
Swampbuggy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 118
- Points
- 530
It would also fit in a CSC mission Bay, I'm guessing. Though, I'm not sure you'd want a frigate babysitting a mine clearance operation, but at least the option is there.
Unless RCN thinks of using civilian ships for MCM (I guess that's not the case), the need for ships with a working area for UUVs and TEUs (TRAPS for instance) is still there. An hybrid OPV+working deck like Venari may be a good option, freeing AOPS to do her Arctic duties.
Besides, the tonnage, speed and hull form of AOPS may be not the best ones to send them to the Caribbean or Africa. Not saying she cannot perform the role, just that it is not optimized for such duties as an OPV could be.
IMHO however, if the OPV is required to have a cyclone pad and hangar (telescopic or not), plus a working deck, we'll rather be in the 2600-3000 tonnes range. Both Damen (NL) and Navantia (SP) have made something in that range.
Swampbuggy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 118
- Points
- 530
Update: Canada issues Royal Canadian Navy ISTAR UAS request for information
I think you are referring to this current tender. I'm not sure if it's to replace SKELDAR or compliment it. If the latter, that means the RCN would be fielding 3 different UAV systems, including the PUMA used by MCDV'S.
- Reaction score
- 1,021
- Points
- 1,060
maybe another scandinavian ship like the
en.wikipedia.org
1700t
72m
18 crew
helicopter deck
stern launch and recovery
ice class 6
Knud Rasmussen-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia
1700t
72m
18 crew
helicopter deck
stern launch and recovery
ice class 6
Swampbuggy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 118
- Points
- 530
It's a very nice vessel, but not the speediest thing around at 17kt. Range (according to wiki FWIW) is 3000 NM compared with 5500 NM for the RIVER class, too.maybe another scandinavian ship like the
Knud Rasmussen-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia
1700t
72m
18 crew
helicopter deck
stern launch and recovery
ice class 6
- Reaction score
- 4,663
- Points
- 1,040
Currently, the SKELDAR contract for the RCN was to have UAS operated by contractors. There were only a few systems AFAIK, and the concept was trialed. Now it looks like a 20 year contract for systems to expand the sensor envelope of the frigates out to their weapons ranges. SKELDAR is likely able to bid on the new contract. Perhaps this needs to be cut an paste into the Navy UAV discussion thread or the future capability thread.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,207
- Points
- 1,160
People/Politicians will ask why we need a baby AOP's. The replacement is going to have to be distinct from the AOP's and fill other roles.maybe another scandinavian ship like the
Knud Rasmussen-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia
1700t
72m
18 crew
helicopter deck
stern launch and recovery
ice class 6
So far we all seem to agree on:
Range: must be ocean capable and cross the Atlantic, Sea State?
Size: No smaller than MCDV, but no bigger than 2500DWT
Roles: Mine hunting is a critical function the RCN needs to maintian and improve
Speed: Faster than the current MCDV
Ice: Ice Strengthened
I would dare to add to that:
Range: minimum 5000 nm
Speed min. 18 kts. That is 20% above MCDV's 15 kts (wikip.).
Complement: 40-60
Main Gun: minimum 40mm, best 57mm (anti-aerial role)
Propulsion: electric motor for at least up to 12-15 kts.
I think there is no agreement yet on wether hangar is required or not. IMO small-medium helicopters (3 to 6 tons) would be very useful. Bell 429 or 412 (griffon), as someone has already mentioned, would be nice candidates.
Is there a marinized version of them?, i mean, foldable rotor, corrosion-resistant, strenghtened landing gear and so on.
Range: minimum 5000 nm
Speed min. 18 kts. That is 20% above MCDV's 15 kts (wikip.).
Complement: 40-60
Main Gun: minimum 40mm, best 57mm (anti-aerial role)
Propulsion: electric motor for at least up to 12-15 kts.
I think there is no agreement yet on wether hangar is required or not. IMO small-medium helicopters (3 to 6 tons) would be very useful. Bell 429 or 412 (griffon), as someone has already mentioned, would be nice candidates.
Is there a marinized version of them?, i mean, foldable rotor, corrosion-resistant, strenghtened landing gear and so on.
Swampbuggy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 118
- Points
- 530
Also, it would be beneficial to start with a design that has some support from Allies, a class with more than 2 other vessels, say. The RIVER batch 2 is a 5 ship class and is built by BAE. We certainly have some experience with the company and the ship is a big leap over the MCDV. The ARAFURA class of the RAN is just being built now and looks to be about 14 hulls (18 if you count the 4 ships built for Brunei of the same design). It's about 1700 tonnes, makes 22kts, has a fight/work deck, 4000kt range and will have an MCM biased subclass. It carries and deploys 3 RHIBS. The RAN arms it with a 40mm Bofors and a pair of .50 cal. On paper, it looks good to tick off all the boxes.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 4,663
- Points
- 1,040
Ice strengthened - not necessary and will cost too much in speed and range. AOPS is the ice ship, missions where ice is an issue we can use AOPS.
Gun - 25mm like AOPS or 30mm like CSC will have. The commonality is important here, and targeting systems for those weapons are contained with the weapon. Current 40mm or higher require targeting radar particularly if you want to get any effectiveness out of the new ammunition types (3P for example).
Complement - honestly think that this can be cut down to 30 or so for the core crew, of course with spaces for many more.
Gun - 25mm like AOPS or 30mm like CSC will have. The commonality is important here, and targeting systems for those weapons are contained with the weapon. Current 40mm or higher require targeting radar particularly if you want to get any effectiveness out of the new ammunition types (3P for example).
Complement - honestly think that this can be cut down to 30 or so for the core crew, of course with spaces for many more.
Swampbuggy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 118
- Points
- 530
That being the case, I feel the 30mm is the better choice. Higher max elevation to engage air UAVS or helo, higher rate of fire, hitting power and more ready rounds in mount storage. Plus, CSC program would be ordering 30 + units of the weapon, there's likely a cost saving in adding another 7-8 units.
Similar threads
