Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[FSTO]

As an experienced Navy guy, what are your thoughts on that Chief Engineer?  (Or Underway, or any other Navy folks on here?)

Things I don't know - the condition of the MCDVs. They have been rode pretty hard over the past 25 years. How much longer can they last? But then again we pushed PRO and PRE until the ships themselves said 'ENOUGH FOR CRYN OUT LOUD! I'M DONE!"

Things I do know - If we do reverse the decision the choice will be slow, undergunned and will do jobs it was never designed to do. That's the Canadian way.

 

[MARS]

Dang that picture got me all excited that they had re-installed a new gun system on it, then realized it's just an old photo.

It is from Oct 1998, our inaugural entrance to Esquimalt Hbr following the coastal transfer from the East Coast.  I'm on the bridge wing in the photo.

As an experienced Navy guy, what are your thoughts on that Chief Engineer?  (Or Underway, or any other Navy folks on here?)

While it may be strategically imprudent, there are immediate Operational-level effects that can be achieved by MARLANT/MARPAC by keeping them going, particularly cost savings.
Take a low-impact mission like Op CARIBBE - a KINGSTON-Class MM can only do maybe 40-50% of what a HALIFAX-Class frigate could do on the same mission - but it can do it at 10% of the cost of a Frigate. (Those numbers are just ROM numbers for illustration purposes - except the 10% bit.  My annual fuel budget in 2014 was 10% of what a friend's annual FFG fuel budget was). The same goes for SAR Patrols, Sovereignty Patrols, Fisheries Patrols, MARPATs, etc.  All stuff that is currently assigned to the RCN - some of which are part of official burden-sharing agreements with OGDs, so not something that the RCN can easily divest ourselves of.

Training is another aspect.  With so many recent years where junior officers spent their times as 2nd, 3rd and 4th Officers-of-the-Watch because of a limited number of FFGs, MCDVs provide more platforms for junior officers to get their basic navigation and OOW training done and somewhat consolidated. Sure, no one is launching or recovering a helo on an MCDV or the other high-speed, low drag stuff, but a Sub-Lieutenant gets to drive a ship.  Heck, I deployed to the Arctic with a Pre-NOPQ officer as my NavO.  He was standing his own watches about 3 weeks after leaving Halifax.

The Command development opportunities at the XO and CO-level for pre-FFG XO officers are also worth their weight in training gold, I think.

 

[Stoker]

Things I don't know - the condition of the MCDVs. They have been rode pretty hard over the past 25 years. How much longer can they last? But then again we pushed PRO and PRE until the ships themselves said 'ENOUGH FOR CRYN OUT LOUD! I'M DONE!"

Things I do know - If we do reverse the decision the choice will be slow, undergunned and will do jobs it was never designed to do. That's the Canadian way.

The ships are in what I would say good shape. They have a pretty robust civilian maintenance program and every 60 months the ship is dry docked for inspections and implementation of some of the more invasive Engineering Changes (ECs). I would suspect they have at least another 10 years in them. As systems age out we get newer systems and our ships have never been laid up due to parts shortages. I just had a new digital steering system installed which is part of a wider EC for a dynamic positioning system which is very similar to what a offshore supply ship has. According to the contractor it has a 200% redundancy. MARS will attest the importance of a new steering system

As MARS said , very economical and I would add very hard to replace. Since Jan I was to Africa and the equator and to the Arctic Circle with very little maintenance issues. We went home early due to COVID, fueled in Cape Verde and had no issues crossing the Atlantic on the fuel.

 

[MARS]

MARS will attest the importance of a new steering system

*shudder*

A genuine testament to your leadership and the performance of your team, Chief.  The flurry of helm and engine orders I issued in that (aborted) departure from Cartagena would have been enough for the SSD Helmsman to have earned his pay that day.  The fact that you and your team were able to respond to them quickly and correctly from Secondary Steering still amazes me, and reminds me how fortunate I was. 

:cheers:

But we digress....back on topic

 

[OldSolduer]

Things I do know - If we do reverse the decision the choice will be slow, undergunned and will do jobs it was never designed to do. That's the Canadian way.

Ain't that the truth and in some respects the Army does the same thing - the exceptions being The Leopards and The LAVs.

 

[dimsum]

Ain't that the truth and in some respects the Army does the same thing - the exceptions being The Leopards and The LAVs.

Ditto with RCAF. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Ain't that the truth and in some respects the Army does the same thing - the exceptions being The Leopards and The LAVs.

WRT the LAVs - 25mm isn't 40mm.  Or even 35mm. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It is from Oct 1998, our inaugural entrance to Esquimalt Hbr following the coastal transfer from the East Coast.  I'm on the bridge wing in the photo.

While it may be strategically imprudent, there are immediate Operational-level effects that can be achieved by MARLANT/MARPAC by keeping them going, particularly cost savings.
Take a low-impact mission like Op CARIBBE - a KINGSTON-Class MM can only do maybe 40-50% of what a HALIFAX-Class frigate could do on the same mission - but it can do it at 10% of the cost of a Frigate. (Those numbers are just ROM numbers for illustration purposes - except the 10% bit.  My annual fuel budget in 2014 was 10% of what a friend's annual FFG fuel budget was). The same goes for SAR Patrols, Sovereignty Patrols, Fisheries Patrols, MARPATs, etc.  All stuff that is currently assigned to the RCN - some of which are part of official burden-sharing agreements with OGDs, so not something that the RCN can easily divest ourselves of.

Training is another aspect.  With so many recent years where junior officers spent their times as 2nd, 3rd and 4th Officers-of-the-Watch because of a limited number of FFGs, MCDVs provide more platforms for junior officers to get their basic navigation and OOW training done and somewhat consolidated. Sure, no one is launching or recovering a helo on an MCDV or the other high-speed, low drag stuff, but a Sub-Lieutenant gets to drive a ship.  Heck, I deployed to the Arctic with a Pre-NOPQ officer as my NavO.  He was standing his own watches about 3 weeks after leaving Halifax.

The Command development opportunities at the XO and CO-level for pre-FFG XO officers are also worth their weight in training gold, I think.

It will be interesting to compare those estimates with the AOP's where you might double the fuel costs over the MCDV but increase the versatility significantly. I suspect that in about 3-5 years enough experience to compare the 3 types. 

 

[Cronicbny]

It will be interesting to compare those estimates with the AOP's where you might double the fuel costs over the MCDV but increase the versatility significantly. I suspect that in about 3-5 years enough experience to compare the 3 types.

You will more than double fuel costs. The HDW class at 95% take some 716CUM of fuel which is 4 1/3 times the capacity of the KIN Class. While the range of HDW is 20% better, and the endurance at sea much longer (which makes sense given the significant size difference) I have to think the fuel budget will be much higher. While I agree that versatility will be greatly improved, the HDW class will be magnitudes more expensive to operate and maintain than the KIN Class. 

 

[Underway]

The ships are in what I would say good shape. They have a pretty robust civilian maintenance program and every 60 months the ship is dry docked for inspections and implementation of some of the more invasive Engineering Changes (ECs). I would suspect they have at least another 10 years in them. As systems age out we get newer systems and our ships have never been laid up due to parts shortages. I just had a new digital steering system installed which is part of a wider EC for a dynamic positioning system which is very similar to what a offshore supply ship has. According to the contractor it has a 200% redundancy. MARS will attest the importance of a new steering system

As MARS said , very economical and I would add very hard to replace. Since Jan I was to Africa and the equator and to the Arctic Circle with very little maintenance issues. We went home early due to COVID, fueled in Cape Verde and had no issues crossing the Atlantic on the fuel.

All I can do is back up these two knowledgeable gentlemen.  From the engineering side the MCDV's were not "rode hard and put away wet" like the frigates were so many times in the past.  The contractor support for the systems and the reduced complexity of these vessels has done them quite well.  No combat systems to speak of means their cost is very low from a maintenance perspective, not just an operational perspective.

As for their usage, since the "big idea" I think the RCN is using them correctly with the development path for Officers.  It's not just the NWO types who are getting leadership exposure/development at a lower rank than what was traditional but they are also now trialing Jr. Engineering officers (just off PHVI) onboard as HODs for the Eng Dept on the East Coast.  A valuable experience for these folks as normally their sea time is limited depending on their first ship posting.  And early exposure to departmental work and the divisional system will make them far better/more confident officers for their AHOD and HOD tours. 

 

[Stoker]

All I can do is back up these two knowledgeable gentlemen.  From the engineering side the MCDV's were not "rode hard and put away wet" like the frigates were so many times in the past.  The contractor support for the systems and the reduced complexity of these vessels has done them quite well.  No combat systems to speak of means their cost is very low from a maintenance perspective, not just an operational perspective.

As for their usage, since the "big idea" I think the RCN is using them correctly with the development path for Officers.  It's not just the NWO types who are getting leadership exposure/development at a lower rank than what was traditional but they are also now trailing Jr. Engineering officers (just off PHVI) onboard as HODs for the Eng Depton the East Coast.  A valuable experience for these folks as normally their sea time is limited depending on their first ship posting.  And early exposure to departmental work and the divisional system will make them far better/more confident officers for their AHOD and HOD tours.

Yes looking forward to the NTO's coming in and taking over of the mounds of paperwork and extra duties such as environmental officer that I have to deal with. I'm glad that I can mentor them.

 

[FSTO]

Okay, I'm humbly bowed by my previous statement. MCDV's are a decent training and benign operational environment platform.

 

[Underway]

Some updates on the MCDV's. As they have now are starting to reach the end of their design life the RCN is working on life extensions. No surprise here, it's literally in LEADMARK 2050 that this was the goal.

More importantly, there is a discussion on standing up a replacement OPV project within the next few years (it's all watercooler stuff right now). That would likely be to do some sort of options analysis, requirements analysis, lessons learned etc...

Now I'm not sure where that sort of analysis would end up. LEADMARK lists Mine Countermeasures as an important task for the class and that retention of that capability within the RCN is important. It also points out how valuable the MCDV's have been on peace support and security missions from Africa to the Mexican west coast. There is also the discussion that any such replacement vessel would need to complement the AOPS.

However, the RCN really hasn't invested into MCM heavily like say the Belgians or Swedes have. We don't embarrass ourselves but it's not what I would call a strong capability outside of the Clearance diver trade. It's not like the Kingston class is a specialized MCM vessel. It's basically just a maneuverable hull that you slap equipment on.

Now the fun. A replacement (@Colin Parkinson get in here, you love this stuff...)
Given the two mission sets inherent to the Kingston Class there are two general ways to go. A single class replacement or two class replacement.

6-8 ships to replace 12, as the AOPS will be doing some of the security missions.

Looking at some of the options out there the MCMV that the Belgians/Dutch are looking to use seems like quite the package. It is however listed at ~2800 tons and ~82m in length. It's a much more substantial ship than the MCDV, but with that likely comes better seakeeping and legs. What I like about it that those large MCM vehicle launch bays could also carry boats for security missions. It has a cruise speed of 15 knots.

One of the things that stand out with this ship is that its a package of systems. Without all the other systems (or ones like it) its not nearly as effective. If the RCN wants to take MCM seriously this is the type of direction they should head.

If OPV is the goal then River Class stands out to me. It's literally designed for the Northern Latitudes. It's twice the size of an MCDV but goes about twice as fast as well. The fact it can take ISO containers makes it flexible for some of the interesting trials that MCDV's do. Also it would be a good platform for the TRAPS to add some ASW capabilities to an OPV. Using a similar ISO container capability to makeover the ship to be an MCM platform could be done but it doesn't have the station-keeping abilities likely needed of a proper MCM (with thrusters etc...).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Great post, first initial thoughts:

The MCDV as is has done Yeoman service and almost exact copy is not necessarily a bad thing.

It's good they are not replacing them now, I think the RCN is going to need 5 years to wrap themselves around what the AOP's brings to the table and what it does not.

Mine hunting and clearance is going to be a important asset in the coming future as mines get smart and blur the lines between mine/torpedo/loitering munitions.

Speed is a harsh mistress, you always give up something for it, be careful of the allure of speed at the expense of many things.

Accommodations and crew comfort/safety are going to be critical to maintaining people in the fleet. Build in spare capacity

Flexible cargo is nice but how much do we really use it? How often do we change out modules?

Flight ops, are we looking at a ship that can land a helicopter, if so what size? Or our we looking for a small pad to support UAV's and vertical transfers from helicopters.

Training: How much of the role will be training future Naval Personal? That impacts on ships services, accommodations.

6" high angle automated guns in a dual high speed turret and 12 VLS (I have a rep to maintain ) Forward gun mount designed to accommodate up to 57 or 76mm gun with protected magazine space and power/comms. Even if they put the same weapon system and comms as the AOP's but have the built in ability to rearm it. Hard points and services for countermeasures midships both sides and RWS (.50cal/25mm protecting the aft. Aligning the combat systems with the AOP's has value both in training and parts. A lot depends on the size and layout of the vessel.

Does it need ice strengthening?

Towing, since Canada does not have dedicated support ships, can these also fulfil the role of rescue tug for the fleet?

That's all I can think of now, I also like the new River Class OPV, but wonder about the mine hunting being lost with them?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Can you minehunt with Autonomous Underwater Vehicles? How close to a mine do you actually have to get and is precision station keeping mandatory?

 

[Underway]

Can you minehunt with Autonomous Underwater Vehicles? How close to a mine do you actually have to get and is precision station keeping mandatory?

Autonomous not to sure. I don't think so yet. From my convo's with clearance divers over the years a mine could look like anything (underwater IED for example). Or partially burried in mud. I think an autonomous system that drives a grid with a sensor to find objects (route survey) would be a good idea. Then send in UUV's to check out what they are and a human can make an assessment if that was a mine or just a barrel.

UUV's do the identification, placement of the explosive to disable the mine, and then post explosion inspection to see if it worked. Which means a ship/boat needs to be close enough for that tether back to the control station. If divers are used I'm sure they want to return to approx where they left from. I can only conclude that ideally excellent dynamic station keeping would be required for that. But that doesn't have to be the ship, it could be a boat the ship launches while the ship cruises around safely away from the minefield.



This image may explain it better. You can see where the tech is going and infer for yourself where an autonomous vehicle might fit in best. The Belgians are likely the best MCM experts in NATO. Its a valuable nitch they fit in given their countries size.

Of note most mines do NOT look like those pictured here.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Autonomous not to sure. I don't think so yet. From my convo's with clearance divers over the years a mine could look like anything (underwater IED for example). Or partially burried in mud. I think an autonomous system that drives a grid with a sensor to find objects (route survey) would be a good idea. Then send in UUV's to check out what they are and a human can make an assessment if that was a mine or just a barrel.

UUV's do the identification, placement of the explosive to disable the mine, and then post explosion inspection to see if it worked. Which means a ship/boat needs to be close enough for that tether back to the control station. If divers are used I'm sure they want to return to approx where they left from. I can only conclude that ideally excellent dynamic station keeping would be required for that. But that doesn't have to be the ship, it could be a boat the ship launches while the ship cruises around safely away from the minefield.

View attachment 65341

This image may explain it better. You can see where the tech is going and infer for yourself where an autonomous vehicle might fit in best. The Belgians are likely the best MCM experts in NATO. Its a valuable nitch they fit in given their countries size.

Of note most mines do NOT look like those pictured here.

Thanks. I don’t follow MCM all that closely, so I wasn’t sure where the tech was today/near future. It does seem to me that the “mother platform” can be quite a bit less specialized than it was in the past, if it is carrying the appropriate mission payload and the requisite autonmous vehicles (tethered or not) that can do the search/ID/neutralization work, without risking mom (too much).

And I get that mines don’t much look like their WW2 grandparents anymore.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I'd imagine the question would be whether it was deemed necessary to invest more heavily into a dedicated mine warfare/clearance capability or are we satisfied with how we do it now? It's been stated in this forum before that mechanical sweeping has not been done by the MCDV's for some time and that they are trending towards using drones and standing off a bit. If we feel that this is as much as we need to do, then we leave it to other NATO members to do the specialized stuff and we pivot towards a more OPV biased solution. Given our coastlines and the area of operations where a replacement OPV would be regularly tasked, I would suggest a larger, faster and more capable vessel is the preferred option. A RIVER class OPV is a major step forward for our coastal patrol needs, but there are a few drawbacks. Lack of hangar of any size for either help or UAV has drawn considerable criticism in the UK. It also is not currently equipped with a bow thruster. That would make dynamic positioning/manoeuvring difficult for the times it would be involved with mine related operations. Personally, I'm a fan of the RNZN OTAGO class. It has a hangar, bow thruster, multiple smaller boat capabilities and is ice strengthened. It has decent range at 15kts and can make 22 as required. Moreover, I believe it was originally designed in Canada by STX marine.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAYegQINBAC&usg=AOvVaw19MHU068-m-cTQWeBU3HHt

 

[Swampbuggy]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/protectorclassoffsho/&ved=2ahUKEwjM-f_ZzvvwAhVUOs0KHdeUCqwQFjAYegQINBAC&usg=AOvVaw19MHU068-m-cTQWeBU3HHt

 

[Underway]

And I get that mines don’t much look like their WW2 grandparents anymore.

No offense was intended. That addendum wasn't directed at you, more for the general audience who might not know much about naval mines in general.