• 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)

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
238
Points
680
Actually, the Gowind class offshore patrol vessels of the Argentinian navy are not "derivatives" but the original Gowind vessel. The first of class is the ex-French navy L'Adroit, which was built by DCNS at its own request for evaluation by the French navy. The French navy decided it did not need that type of vessel after the expiry of the five years evaluation lease. It was sold to Argentine in 2018, with an order for three more new built versions. The rest of the Gowind corvettes are derivatives of this first design and led to a later build of the Egyptian navy 2500 tons Gowind corvettes.

In any event, if the RCN ever wants to buy and operate vessels in that general category, I can almost certainly guarantee it will have to be a Canadian designed and built ship - as it should be - because if we can't do that little for our own naval defence, we may as well surrender to the Americans right away.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
716
Points
1,010
That’ll never happen. During the CSS RFP process, the Naval Group decided to try to take over the NSS because Irving is not to be trusted.
Not how I heard it. More like Naval Group wanted full control over their IP. Which was a no-no from Canada's perspective. We want to be able to repair our own ships.

It's also not like Naval Group is a trustworthy organization themselves. The current Australian sub-program is held up because Naval Group wants access to Australian IP in exchange for theirs. Apparently, they were not happy when Australia informed them that wasn't how this was going to work.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
102
Points
430
Actually, the Gowind class offshore patrol vessels of the Argentinian navy are not "derivatives" but the original Gowind vessel. The first of class is the ex-French navy L'Adroit, which was built by DCNS at its own request for evaluation by the French navy. The French navy decided it did not need that type of vessel after the expiry of the five years evaluation lease. It was sold to Argentine in 2018, with an order for three more new built versions. The rest of the Gowind corvettes are derivatives of this first design and led to a later build of the Egyptian navy 2500 tons Gowind corvettes.

In any event, if the RCN ever wants to buy and operate vessels in that general category, I can almost certainly guarantee it will have to be a Canadian designed and built ship - as it should be - because if we can't do that little for our own naval defence, we may as well surrender to the Americans right away.
I just stumbled upon the vessel and it seemed to fit the objectives stated by many on here pretty decently. Do you expect that Canada will be able to or be willing to design its own ships again?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
716
Points
1,010
I just stumbled upon the vessel and it seemed to fit the objectives stated by many on here pretty decently. Do you expect that Canada will be able to or be willing to design its own ships again?
I do. There are patrol boats in other countries designed by Canadian companies. Also a OPV/minesweeper are not that complicated if you want a "cheap and nasty".
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,495
Points
940
The Gowind class look a bit to much like Frigate which would likely make the senior navy types assessing designs nervous, because some idiot in TB or the PMO, or a politician will go "Well this looks like a CSC, why do you need the expensive ones when your buying these?" Now a faster MCM vessel perhaps based on the River Class hull might be the way to go. Not really convinced that you need a hanger now that you have the AOP's, AOR's and CSC in the future.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,121
Points
1,160
The Gowind class look a bit to much like Frigate which would likely make the senior navy types assessing designs nervous, because some idiot in TB or the PMO, or a politician will go "Well this looks like a CSC, why do you need the expensive ones when your buying these?" Now a faster MCM vessel perhaps based on the River Class hull might be the way to go. Not really convinced that you need a hanger now that you have the AOP's, AOR's and CSC in the future.
QFTT!
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
40
Points
280
The Gowind class look a bit to much like Frigate which would likely make the senior navy types assessing designs nervous, because some idiot in TB or the PMO, or a politician will go "Well this looks like a CSC, why do you need the expensive ones when your buying these?" Now a faster MCM vessel perhaps based on the River Class hull might be the way to go. Not really convinced that you need a hanger now that you have the AOP's, AOR's and CSC in the future.
I wouldn't mind a hangar for UAVs, not necessarily a full sized helo, TBH. I believe the GERMAN BRAUNSCHWEIG class corvette has a UAV hangar to service/maintain/house a Camcopter.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
102
Points
430
I wouldn't mind a hangar for UAVs, not necessarily a full sized helo, TBH. I believe the GERMAN BRAUNSCHWEIG class corvette has a UAV hangar to service/maintain/house a Camcopter.
I think the
Braunschweig-class corvette - Wikipedia
River-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia and the
ARA Bouchard (P-51) - Wikipedia are all very comparable ships but I think the Gowind corvette/OPV is a better fit

1100-1450 tonnes displacement versus 1700-2000 tonnes
30 vs 50 crew
should make it a cheaper platform to operate
plus the stern ramp and hanger
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
238
Points
680
I wouldn't want any of those.

Let's go back to first principles here: What mission are we getting the ship for? If, as I suspect everyone here is trending towards, we are getting replacement mine warfare vessels, then I suggest the solution is in the "mothership/remote operated systems" concept being worked on by the RN or the Dutch and Belgian Navies (see following info: The future of Royal Navy mine hunting | Navy Lookout ,

If that is the case, why start with a design built for another purpose and try to make it fit? Just build a mothership from scratch designed around the combat system/remote piloted/controled mine warfare equipment. Like the envisioned British/Dutch/Belgian solutions, I suspect it would come in around 2000 tons displacement and capable of 20 Kts - lightly armed. We can design and build something like that right here in Canada, we don't even have to look somewhere else for it.
 

Pelorus

Member
Reaction score
98
Points
430
I think we need to ask ourselves if mine warfare is actually the primary mission we're looking for. Maybe it is, but I don't know if that's a foregone conclusion.

Is some level of mine warfare capability important for Canada? Sure, if for nothing else than to be an important tool in the toolbox and likely to meet some obligations we've previously agreed to with allies (just an assumption on the second point, not my area).

The mission fit nature of modern containerized MW systems means that any ship with a large enough sweep deck and some specialized equipment like a large utility crane can be a mine warfare vessel, and doesn't necessarily need to be purpose built. There are certainly advantages to a vessel specialized for one task, but it's not as critical for MW as it used to be IMO.

What's the current ratio of MW-specific missions vs. other tasks (e.g., Op Carribbe/Tradewinds/ComRel/general FG, etc.) that the MCDVs currently do while at sea? 10-90? 20-80? Certainly not the majority.

Once all the AOPS are operational that will change the dynamic as the AOPS will share the load of some of those other tasks. But there will always be a role in the RCN for a small, lightly crewed, cheaply operated vessel which has the legs to go abroad.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,495
Points
940
If someone starts mining the entrances to commercial harbours of an ally, then mine hunters are going to be in short supply, just the risk of it happening is likely to force the government to "Do something". It's a task to be prepared for. Mine hunters can come in 2 sizes, ocean going ones that can go overseas on their own to support a mission and Coastal/inland ones. Have the Naval Reserve units based around large commercial harbours tasked to provide a patrol boat and limited mine hunting capability. Giving them those missions in local areas gives them a chance to practice their skills and provide a quick response if required.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,701
Points
1,060
If someone starts mining the entrances to commercial harbours of an ally, then mine hunters are going to be in short supply, just the risk of it happening is likely to force the government to "Do something". It's a task to be prepared for. Mine hunters can come in 2 sizes, ocean going ones that can go overseas on their own to support a mission and Coastal/inland ones. Have the Naval Reserve units based around large commercial harbours tasked to provide a patrol boat and limited mine hunting capability. Giving them those missions in local areas gives them a chance to practice their skills and provide a quick response if required.

Is it too late to buy these back?

YAG training vessel​


 

quadrapiper

Sr. Member
Reaction score
47
Points
330
Is it too late to buy these back?

YAG training vessel​


That size definitely has something going for it. Handy, manageable little ships. I've heard from various people who were around during the replacement process that the Orcas (successors to the YAGs) were originally meant to be more or less a steel YAG, versus the much more massive final result. I'm sure someone on here has more definitive knowledge.
 
Top