• 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)

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
606
Points
890
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.
The upgraded and new build Twin Hueys the USMC operates are marinized, so it's definitely doable.
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
34
Points
280
Let me reply one point after another...

Arafura class looks nice, however her short-legs (4000 nm, 21 days) and diesel propulsion do not tick the boxes. As far as it's based on Lurssen OPV-80, going one step beyond to OPV-85 would add hangar, electric drive and maybe higher endurance at the cost of about aditional 300 tons (total 1900). This being all theoretically, as these ships are always tailored to customer request.

Second, a crew of 30 for a MCM vessel may be ok, but, not being an expert, I believe not enough for an OPV.

I may agree to the 30 mm gun, considering that MCDVs are performing their roles without their original 40 mm guns. However the Arafura shows a 40mm... there must be good reasons for that.

Finally, new Hueys (UH-1Y, about 8 tons) may well be the solution, despite I was rather thinking of smaller helicopters (bell 412 or 429), including also Wildcat or the new Airbus' H-160.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,496
Points
940
The 429 is Canadian made and already owed by Canada. I would hire TC to provide the helicopter and crew to provide for the domestic and humanitarian ops. Even the CCG 1100's struggle to handle the 412/414.
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
40
Points
280
Let me reply one point after another...

Arafura class looks nice, however her short-legs (4000 nm, 21 days) and diesel propulsion do not tick the boxes. As far as it's based on Lurssen OPV-80, going one step beyond to OPV-85 would add hangar, electric drive and maybe higher endurance at the cost of about aditional 300 tons (total 1900). This being all theoretically, as these ships are always tailored to customer request.

Second, a crew of 30 for a MCM vessel may be ok, but, not being an expert, I believe not enough for an OPV.

I may agree to the 30 mm gun, considering that MCDVs are performing their roles without their original 40 mm guns. However the Arafura shows a 40mm... there must be good reasons for that.

Finally, new Hueys (UH-1Y, about 8 tons) may well be the solution, despite I was rather thinking of smaller helicopters (bell 412 or 429), including also Wildcat or the new Airbus' H-160.
I think the 40mm on the ARAFURA is a byproduct of Australia's geographic location in relation to Chinese activities. Our situation is not as tense, realistically, and when the RCN does operate in hot spots (SCS fonops etc) they will send a frigate. It's telling that the RN uses a 30mm on the RIVER class, rather than something larger.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,496
Points
940
I largely assume that most armament decisions in the West for anything less than a "capital ship" is driven by "What is the least we can get away with" rather than "What is the best system we can fit on a vessel that size". Throw in budgetary pressures, manning issues and lack of good fleet maintenance support and you can see why they go with the former.
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
40
Points
280
I largely assume that most armament decisions in the West for anything less than a "capital ship" is driven by "What is the least we can get away with" rather than "What is the best system we can fit on a vessel that size". Throw in budgetary pressures, manning issues and lack of good fleet maintenance support and you can see why they go with the former.
There's always that fall back position that weapons systems can be upscaled as need demands. Though true, it's unclear how long that would take if the situation required it. Between procurement time, installation and associated systems (radar, fire control directors etc), it's not likely to be a very quick turnaround. Hopefully that doesn't come back to haunt anyone.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,496
Points
940
If you build it to the standards for 57/76mm gun, with all the cabling, strengthening, dedicated spaces, Combat support systems and power requirements. Then stick a 30mm on it, you can very quickly up gun it if needed. but if you don't, then you face a very large and expensive hill to climb later. In fact you could buy a few 57mm guns and turrets packed away in grease for such an occasion.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
717
Points
1,010
How about we arm to the role that is expected of the ship? An OPV in Canadian, Caribean or African waters would be perfectly safe with 2x50 cal remote weapon systems and a 30mm. And if the threat level rises beyond what it is capable of then it leaves.

What is a 57mm going to do that a 30mm can't in the OPV/Minehunter role? A 57mm is for air defense. To have air defence you need an air search radar and a targeting radar. All a 57mm does on an OPV is make it much more expensive with little capability improvement for its job.

I honestly think that a lot of the world navies bolt these things on their ships because of prestige, politics, or the fact they have no understanding of what is required for proper missile defence.

You would be better off with ASM attached to it and make it a missile boat. No defence, just offence. Use an over the horizon UAV for targeting and let fly.

Edit: In addition, the 30mm has APFSDS-T ammunition available that is designed to supercavitate, thus it can shoot things underwater. This makes it particularly effective at sinking things as the rounds can penetrate things below the waterline instead of shattering or skipping. Mines would be an example of this, as would boat hulls.
 
Last edited:

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
40
Points
280
How about we arm to the role that is expected of the ship? An OPV in Canadian, Caribean or African waters would be perfectly safe with 2x50 cal remote weapon systems and a 30mm. And if the threat level rises beyond what it is capable of then it leaves.

What is a 57mm going to do that a 30mm can't in the OPV/Minehunter role? A 57mm is for air defense. To have air defence you need an air search radar and a targeting radar. All a 57mm does on an OPV is make it much more expensive with little capability improvement for its job.

I honestly think that a lot of the world navies bolt these things on their ships because of prestige, politics, or the fact they have no understanding of what is required for proper missile defence.

You would be better off with ASM attached to it and make it a missile boat. No defence, just offence. Use an over the horizon UAV for targeting and let fly.

Edit: In addition, the 30mm has APFSDS-T ammunition available that is designed to supercavitate, thus it can shoot things underwater. This makes it particularly effective at sinking things as the rounds can penetrate things below the waterline instead of shattering or skipping. Mines would be an example of this, as would boat hulls.

How about we arm to the role that is expected of the ship? An OPV in Canadian, Caribean or African waters would be perfectly safe with 2x50 cal remote weapon systems and a 30mm. And if the threat level rises beyond what it is capable of then it leaves.

What is a 57mm going to do that a 30mm can't in the OPV/Minehunter role? A 57mm is for air defense. To have air defence you need an air search radar and a targeting radar. All a 57mm does on an OPV is make it much more expensive with little capability improvement for its job.

I honestly think that a lot of the world navies bolt these things on their ships because of prestige, politics, or the fact they have no understanding of what is required for proper missile defence.

You would be better off with ASM attached to it and make it a missile boat. No defence, just offence. Use an over the horizon UAV for targeting and let fly.

Edit: In addition, the 30mm has APFSDS-T ammunition available that is designed to supercavitate, thus it can shoot things underwater. This makes it particularly effective at sinking things as the rounds can penetrate things below the waterline instead of shattering or skipping. Mines would be an example of this, as would boat hulls.
The RN has also trialled MARTLET light missiles from their DS30M chain gun mounts. That would be an option to up the game a little if needed that wouldn't be too difficult to add on.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjANegQIFRAC&usg=AOvVaw0qVW2uOunML3RksPTW1Rn-
 

Attachments

  • MSI-Seahawk-Sigma-30mm-ATK-and-Thales-Lightweight-Multirole-Missile-LMM.jpg
    MSI-Seahawk-Sigma-30mm-ATK-and-Thales-Lightweight-Multirole-Missile-LMM.jpg
    187.7 KB · Views: 1

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
717
Points
1,010
They have but the trial ended... oddly. The missiles were removed and nothing was said about how they worked. That's usually a sign that they needed to go back to the drawing board (or it was too expensive).

I like the idea, very Russian of them.

OT- I wonder if MANPADS might be a better choice there. Really be able to cheaply deal with UAV's that get too close. Of course, that might be to expensive or not enough range when the 30mm could hit them itself.
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
47
Points
330
I largely assume that most armament decisions in the West for anything less than a "capital ship" is driven by "What is the least we can get away with" rather than "What is the best system we can fit on a vessel that size". Throw in budgetary pressures, manning issues and lack of good fleet maintenance support and you can see why they go with the former.
Unfortunately, history would agree with you.

Another note, is that few here have thought of new jobs for a theoretical MCDV replacement vessel. We must anticipate what new jobs will be asked of this class for the next few decades, and not solely focus on what they do now. Otherwise, gov't will follow the Kingston-Class blueprint and make a slightly newer version that can't do anything well jack-of-a-couple-trades. A flag-waving vessel, armed similarly to an AOPS.

I think it's just as important for us to set the bar at its highest for this new class, while also being stuck with the affordability 'bar' of the MCDVs. If we run down the list of jobs this thing has to be able to do well, we put ourselves in another (compromising) situation. The class isn't even able to do what its named after... exactly how have the Kingston-Class ships been doing coastal defence??

Shoulda built 12 AOPS and be done with it. Not possible now, so we'll be stuck with a River-Class Batch 2, that will show up, say hi, wave the flag, and go. And, we'll probably buy 6 to do the job of 12 across 2 coasts.
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
47
Points
330
Similarly, forget about the tech specs, as gov't doesn't really care at the end of the day what the tonnage is, just about jobs.

Would've been smart to do another 6 AOPS, but that's not possible anymore due to CSC timelines/priority.

Call it an Restigouche-Class, make it a light-frigate UAS mothership. Give it all the jobs the CSC is too fancy for (but not able to replace), make it cheap to run, and arm it lightly. Hack up the Halifax's as they come offline, give them the old 57mm and harpoons or ESSMs. Make it an even cheaper Type 31e.

Guarantee if we get River Class B2s we'll be asking what they bring to the table (like we did for AOPS)?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,496
Points
940
Except that with 15 CSC, we won`t really need a cheapo type 31, what we will need is a patrol vessel that can go places even a AOPs can`t, a vessel to conduct mine clearance and route survey from and something to train on that is cheap to run. I would add that the Naval Reserve Units in the major harbours should also get a 50-70' patrol boat to conduct training and harbour security.
 
Last edited:

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
164
Points
680
Currently sailing in a Kingston Class on a major NATO MCM exercise in the Baltic. One ship operates the REMIS AUV to identify mines and the other has the diving payload to inspect and destroy. We both employ ROVs and have updated degausing systems.

In the regards to the future of the class more than likely another 10 years or more due to the ships being in such good shape, the ships are well maintained using the ISSC model and are constantly upgraded and maintained better than the CPFs. HMCS Kingston has had her structural certification extended past their original design life and just came out of refit.

Something people have to realize that any replacement will cost much more than the original and will never reach the low operating costs of the Kingston Class. AOPS is also compared to the Kingston class way more expensive to operate. The Kingston class fills a niche that is not easily replaceable unless you want to spend the dollars.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
717
Points
1,010
Currently sailing in a Kingston Class on a major NATO MCM exercise in the Baltic. One ship operates the REMIS AUV to identify mines and the other has the diving payload to inspect and destroy. We both employ ROVs and have updated degausing systems.

In the regards to the future of the class more than likely another 10 years or more due to the ships being in such good shape, the ships are well maintained using the ISSC model and are constantly upgraded and maintained better than the CPFs. HMCS Kingston has had her structural certification extended past their original design life and just came out of refit.

Something people have to realize that any replacement will cost much more than the original and will never reach the low operating costs of the Kingston Class. AOPS is also compared to the Kingston class way more expensive to operate. The Kingston class fills a niche that is not easily replaceable unless you want to spend the dollars.
Thanks @Stoker for the update on what you are using now. I can add my voice to the 10 year timeframe. The O&M world fully expects this to be the case, particularly as only just recently have they started talking about standing up a replacement project (which kicked off our recent discussion here of course). Which we all know if it started tomorrow would likely take 10 years...

I like that you bring up operating costs. It's something like 10 thousand a day to operate an MCDV (including pers costs). That is ridiculously inexpensive. Dollars for the value they're easily the best ship in the fleet. This might be a better goal for the RCN than a 2-3 thousand ton OPV. An MCDV 2.0 design, maybe slightly increased in size to improve seakeeping/speed/payload.
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
40
Points
280
MCDV 2.0 would have to be almost a new design, in the same way as a Super Hornet is to a legacy Hornet. To get better speed and seakeeping, the hull would have to be lengthened and probably move away from the hard chine form. Keep the Z drives, add a bow thruster and dynamic positioning. Propulsion ideally would be diesel/electric. The added length could make it feasible to have a combo helo/ UAV pad and an expanded work deck at the stern. I think it would be beneficial to have 2 RHIBS on those side launch/retrieve davits. I'd suggest using the same SCANTER style radar as the AOPS, for the commonality and if you needed it for helo ops in a pinch. Armament as mentioned before, with 30mm and .50 cal. Say 30-40 officers and crew, plus room for LEDET or OGD teams to embark.

With all that considered, you're probably in the 250-300 ft and 1500-2000 tonne range. So, potentially very close to a RIVER or OTAGO class vessel in terms of size. I'm sure that's more expensive to operate than an MCDV, but with a more hydrodynamic hull form, maybe not exorbitantly so? It would be much cheaper to send out than an AOPS or frigate, and you could conceivably use it for operations like CTF 150 patrols or even send it to RIMPAC. That frees up a CSC to do other things.

So, if all that is close to being feasible, is it really cheaper to redesign a ship based on the MCDV and go through all the teething pains associated with that, or just pick something that already exists?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,496
Points
940
How about we arm to the role that is expected of the ship? An OPV in Canadian, Caribean or African waters would be perfectly safe with 2x50 cal remote weapon systems and a 30mm. And if the threat level rises beyond what it is capable of then it leaves.

What is a 57mm going to do that a 30mm can't in the OPV/Minehunter role? A 57mm is for air defense. To have air defence you need an air search radar and a targeting radar. All a 57mm does on an OPV is make it much more expensive with little capability improvement for its job.

I honestly think that a lot of the world navies bolt these things on their ships because of prestige, politics, or the fact they have no understanding of what is required for proper missile defence.

You would be better off with ASM attached to it and make it a missile boat. No defence, just offence. Use an over the horizon UAV for targeting and let fly.

Edit: In addition, the 30mm has APFSDS-T ammunition available that is designed to supercavitate, thus it can shoot things underwater. This makes it particularly effective at sinking things as the rounds can penetrate things below the waterline instead of shattering or skipping. Mines would be an example of this, as would boat hulls.
Looking at how well threats have been anticipated in the past, I would not rely heavily on that approach. Building the vessel with some ability to up gun/arm is better than trying to cram on stuff later because things have changed. The world could get very interesting in the next 20+ years and threats are evolving quickly. Defensive lasers might also be in the mix and that would require some forethought to the power requirements and cabling.
 
Top