• 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)

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
566
Points
1,060
I suppose one answer to the question of deployable ships would be to take the 2 CCG AOPS (if they even still intend to build them) and repurpose them to the RCN. I'm dubious about how much you can expect 6 hulls to handle (re: AOPS) when considering their intended missions, taking over some MCDV stuff AND possibly spelling off frigates. Maybe take advantage of the hot line and get something that the Navy is already familiar with, without having to do a rush RFP purchase job?
The original Statement of Requirement and Concept of Operations both called for 8 ships to be built for the navy and to be solely deployed in Canadian arctic waters
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
40
Points
280
That number makes more sense, to me. Particularly if the current plan is to have 2 Pacific based and the other 4 Atlantic fleet. If the maintenance requirement have one down for servicing at all times, I think it's asking a lot of the other west coast unit to be tasked with all these other possible missions. With 3 on that coast and 5 on the opposite, it seems more feasible.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
102
Points
430
That number makes more sense, to me. Particularly if the current plan is to have 2 Pacific based and the other 4 Atlantic fleet. If the maintenance requirement have one down for servicing at all times, I think it's asking a lot of the other west coast unit to be tasked with all these other possible missions. With 3 on that coast and 5 on the opposite, it seems more feasible.
I don't know if it does make sense. Do we really need 8 very lighty armed, very light icebreakers? It sorta depends on whether the AOPS will be tasked with everything the Kingstons are doing or if the Kingstons carry on or are replaced
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
40
Points
280
I don't know if it does make sense. Do we really need 8 very lighty armed, very light icebreakers? It sorta depends on whether the AOPS will be tasked with everything the Kingstons are doing or if the Kingstons carry on or are replaced
Well, it's not ideal, that much is true. But, if the issue is that an impactful number of your frigates are unavailable/untenable due to fatigue and the bandaids are no longer enough, it may be a partial solution. There's not enough time, perhaps, to ram through a purchase of a more suitable OPV before you could build two more AOPS. As far as it goes for the MCDV'S, I would keep them doing the things they have been doing, including CARRIBOPS, Africa deployments etc, and save an AOPS or 2 for a mission that is suitable for them, is beyond an MCDV and saves some mileage on a CPF. Something like CTF 150, maybe or possibly RIMPAC? That, combined with a newfound availability of a trio of VIC"S, might take the load off enough to focus on keeping the in better order, or at least as many as possible.

Its a sort of stop gap, to be sure, but it may allow the best 9-10 CPF's to get the sort of maintenance time that is needed to keep them relevant until the CSC's start to arrive.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
419
Points
880
I don't know if it does make sense. Do we really need 8 very lighty armed, very light icebreakers? It sorta depends on whether the AOPS will be tasked with everything the Kingstons are doing or if the Kingstons carry on or are replaced
It does if youre a Canadian politician and you want to give the shallow impression that you are invested in securing the north.
 

Maxman1

Member
Reaction score
96
Points
430

Beyond the MCDV replacement, I would equip certain Naval Reserve Unit with 3 vessels each, A fast RHIB with a pintle mount for MG or a RWS for an MG, along with an enclosed wheelhouse. A commercial based hull for mine hunting 50-70' and overnight capable simple training vessel similar to the YAG, for the unit and local Cadet corps to training on. Have them all serviced in commercial yards nearby.

Bahh! Just add an enclosed bridge to the Fairmile D torpedo boat! And use the 6 pounder from the Mosquito.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
716
Points
1,010
Is there any reason that the AOPS can't act as a mothership for mine warfare especially with UUWV?
No inbuilt degaussing system and no acoustic signature management are strikes against it. MCDV's do have degaussing. However with autonomous vehicles lots fo things that were not possible years ago might be possible now. It certainly has the cranes and space.
The original Statement of Requirement and Concept of Operations both called for 8 ships to be built for the navy and to be solely deployed in Canadian arctic waters
The original government direction called for 8 ships to be built for the navy and to be solely deployed in Canadian arctic waters. The SOR and CONOPS when the RCN got ahold of the project became more.
That number makes more sense, to me. Particularly if the current plan is to have 2 Pacific based and the other 4 Atlantic fleet. If the maintenance requirement have one down for servicing at all times, I think it's asking a lot of the other west coast unit to be tasked with all these other possible missions. With 3 on that coast and 5 on the opposite, it seems more feasible.

Ships 1, 2, 4, 6 will be Atlantic and ships 3, 5 Pacific. The Pacific fleet has less need for the AOPS. More need for a JSS however so they will be getting HMCS Protecteur as compensation ;)

I don't know if it does make sense. Do we really need 8 very lighty armed, very light icebreakers? It sorta depends on whether the AOPS will be tasked with everything the Kingstons are doing or if the Kingstons carry on or are replaced

Kingston's will carry on and as earlier in the thread, there are discussions for their replacement starting. No project office yet though.

Yes, we do need all sorts of ships and the AOPS are armed for their CONOPS. The term "light" icebreaker is misleading. We finally put to bed the "slushbreaker" misnomer after ice trial videos were released. 1.2m ice with power to spare as well as multiyear ice inclusions.

I'm not saying its all singing and dancing, I'm just saying it's the right tool for the job.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,702
Points
1,060
Yes, we do need all sorts of ships and the AOPS are armed for their CONOPS. The term "light" icebreaker is misleading. We finally put to bed the "slushbreaker" misnomer after ice trial videos were released. 1.2m ice with power to spare as well as multiyear ice inclusions.

I'm not saying its all singing and dancing, I'm just saying it's the right tool for the job.

Not being a Navy guy I'm guessing that this is the key and might be roughly equivalent to putting a pair of good tires and chains on your truck, to extend the range of terrain and conditions it can cover so you can get into more remote backcoutry areas to do stuff.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
716
Points
1,010
Not being a Navy guy I'm guessing that this is the key and might be roughly equivalent to putting a pair of good tires and chains on your truck, to extend the range of terrain and conditions it can cover so you can get into more remote backcoutry areas to do stuff.
That's not a bad analogy, but it's more like buying a Jeep Gladiator vs F150. It's a fundamental design difference for different terrain right from the start.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
566
Points
1,060
The original government direction called for 8 ships to be built for the navy and to be solely deployed in Canadian arctic waters. The SOR and CONOPS when the RCN got ahold of the project became more.


Ships 1, 2, 4, 6 will be Atlantic and ships 3, 5 Pacific. The Pacific fleet has less need for the AOPS.

Yes, we do need all sorts of ships and the AOPS are armed for their CONOPS. The term "light" icebreaker is misleading. We finally put to bed the "slushbreaker" misnomer after ice trial videos were released. 1.2m ice with power to spare as well as multiyear ice inclusions.

I'm not saying its all singing and dancing, I'm just saying it's the right tool for the job.

Unfortunately Acrobat has decided it won't let me open my older files on the SOR and CONOPS so you will have to take my word for this :LOL:

My sense of the original government plan was that they wanted a vessel that could operate from the Grand Banks of Newfoundland all the way north to Tuktoyaktuk. Given that ice starts off of St John's, where the Titanic sank, an ice-capable hull seems to be a reasonable requirement to me.

ferryland-iceberg.jpg


The other sense I had was that the fleet would be a Halifax based fleet capable of transiting the Arctic Archipelago when conditions permitted and over-wintering in Victoria prior to returning North and Halifax. The fleet would have the Nanisivik harbour as a refueling depot to extend its range. The primary function, in my opinion, was to maintain a constabulary watch over the navigable waters of the North and maintain Peace, Order and Good Governance with the ability to keep foreign fishers, shrimpers and bear hunters under control and be able to operate more aggressively, in the sense of being able to penetrate the ice farther, sooner and faster, than commercial interests likely to operate in the area.

They were also to be able to call on the resources of the CAF, at priority call, in the event of military/para-military incursions: the advantage of having an RCN vessel in the area rather than a CCG vessel which would have to go to its masters to launch an Aid to the Civil Power request and then not have the skills to direct military forces to the area of interest.

As Underway and D&B both point out - these ships are not about breaking ice. They are about aggressive operations in waters contested by ice and foreign interests. And I believe that 8 was the right number and that the last two being built should be painted Grey, not Red. There is no reason why an AOPS patrol shouldn't start with being the first ship up the St Lawrence Seaway or end with being the last one out. Or being the first into, and last out of, Churchill.

The MCDVs, when they finish their time, they should be replaced by a similarly sized blue-water capable Patrol Vessel for Southern operations - but that would only require 2 or three to co-operate with allies in the Caribbean.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
566
Points
1,060
Bras D'Or was a great technology demonstrator. But it could carry very few crew and the hydrofoil couldn't handle the pressure it was under. It also had no space for any weapons or equipment at all. You can go see it in Quebec. It's like the Avro Arrow. Super cool, good new tech, not developed enough for a practical application. Which of course leads to a myth about how it was super amazing without looking at the negatives.

On the curiosity front - I have a 1976-1977 vintage copy of Jane's Surface Skimmers - bought new when I was young and enthralled with all things nautical.

The Bras D'Or, or more precisely the De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd FHE-400, was contracted in 1961. Approvals came in April 1963 to construct the Fast Hydrofoil Escort warship. "The programme had two fundamental objectives: (a) to establish in practice the feasibility of an ocean-going hydrofoil of the proposed size and characteristics (b) to evaluate the prototype as an ASW system."

The notion was the possibility of utilizing the FHE-400 as a replacement for the Flower Class Corvettes of WW2. The concept, as I understood it, was to chug along at convoy speed on her hull at 12 knots or less towing a variable depth sonar. Every now and then she would stop and listen. Reputedly the hydrofoils gave stability to a relatively small craft in high sea states. She would go up onto her foils to prosecute attacks and evade or out run torpedoes. Torpedoes of the era were 40 knot craft. The Bras D'or, in the right seas, could achieve 50 to 60 knots. Jane's reported a top speed in trials of 63 knots. The general concept of operations was known as "Sprint and Drift". She was to be a blue water MGB/MTB.

Trials were conducted in 1968 and 1969. She achieved over 40 knots foilborne in Sea State 5. She operated hullborne (displacement mode) in higher sea states.

According to Jane's, 8 years later,:

"While objective (a), to confirm operations feasibility in open ocean conditions was met, objective (b) ASW system operation was suspended because of a change in Canadian defence priorities, requiring priority attention to territorial and coastal surveillance"

Regardless of the prototype's issues with material technology and design which caused the foils to crack and fail, hydrofoils were not compatible with the bergy bits floating in Canadian waters. Enter the AOPS?

Bras D'Or was 44m long at the waterline (45.9 OA), 212 long tons GT, 165 long tons Light, Maximum Take Off Displacement of 235 long tons with a useful load (crew, fuel, military load) of 70 tons. She had a crew of 20 (8 Offrs, 12 POs and Ratings). She had two power plants - a 2000 shp diesel for hullborne ops and a 22,000 shp gas turbine foilborne.

Once the Canadian government withdrew from the FHE programme De Havilland proceeded with a private enterprise effort and produced designs for the DHC-MP-100 which claimed to draw interest overseas for "oil rig resupply, coast guard patrol, search and rescue, customs and excise, gunboat, missilecraft and ASW patrol"

The MP-100 was to be a 36m highspeed coastal interceptor with a crew of 14 (2 Offrs, 3 POs, 9 Ratings). Although she only displaced 106 tons "the foil system stabilizes the vessel and gives it the seakeeping characteristics of a ship of 1000/1500 tons (edit - MCDV class) thus improving accuracy of shot and crew performance for a craft of this size".

MP-100 Gunboat

"For coastal patrol, interdiction or for escorting larger ships or convoys a 57mm Bofors gun can be fitted. For self-defence a Vulcan gun can be fitted within weigh and c of g limits"

MP-100 Missilecraft

"To complement the gunboat role, the MP-100 may be fitted with missiles like the Harpoon and Exocet (2x 4? maybe according to my read of a photograph of a model)". The Vulcan was retained on the afterdeck, with the missiles, for self-defence.

MP-100 ASW Patrol Craft

"The craft can cruise at convoy speed on its displacement propulsion units (12 knots) while using variable-depth sonar to search for submarines. On making contact it can attack at high speed."

The weapons fit was to be a lightweight VDS on the after deck along with 2x triple tube torpedo launchers and a Vulcan on the foredeck but with the sensors mounted above the bridge.

The DHC system never took off. ( :LOL: I kill me).

However many other countries adopted similar coastal boats and hydrofoils. The Norwegian Skjold with its air cushioned hull evolved from this era of Skimmer experimentation.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
566
Points
1,060
I wonder if the hull form combination wouldn't make a great starting point for a USV escort for the RCN. Sprint and Drift with no sea-sick sailors. VDS and Torpedoes.
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
128
Points
530
"The other sense I had was that the fleet would be a Halifax based fleet"

Would there be any logic in basing the Atlantic ships in St. John's instead of Halifax? St. John's is closer to where they will be primarily active.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
566
Points
1,060
"The other sense I had was that the fleet would be a Halifax based fleet"

Would there be any logic in basing the Atlantic ships in St. John's instead of Halifax? St. John's is closer to where they will be primarily active.

The sailors can correct me but I think it is only 24 hours or so from Halifax to St John's and Halifax has all the infrastructure.
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
40
Points
280
Unfortunately Acrobat has decided it won't let me open my older files on the SOR and CONOPS so you will have to take my word for this :LOL:

My sense of the original government plan was that they wanted a vessel that could operate from the Grand Banks of Newfoundland all the way north to Tuktoyaktuk. Given that ice starts off of St John's, where the Titanic sank, an ice-capable hull seems to be a reasonable requirement to me.

ferryland-iceberg.jpg


The other sense I had was that the fleet would be a Halifax based fleet capable of transiting the Arctic Archipelago when conditions permitted and over-wintering in Victoria prior to returning North and Halifax. The fleet would have the Nanisivik harbour as a refueling depot to extend its range. The primary function, in my opinion, was to maintain a constabulary watch over the navigable waters of the North and maintain Peace, Order and Good Governance with the ability to keep foreign fishers, shrimpers and bear hunters under control and be able to operate more aggressively, in the sense of being able to penetrate the ice farther, sooner and faster, than commercial interests likely to operate in the area.

They were also to be able to call on the resources of the CAF, at priority call, in the event of military/para-military incursions: the advantage of having an RCN vessel in the area rather than a CCG vessel which would have to go to its masters to launch an Aid to the Civil Power request and then not have the skills to direct military forces to the area of interest.

As Underway and D&B both point out - these ships are not about breaking ice. They are about aggressive operations in waters contested by ice and foreign interests. And I believe that 8 was the right number and that the last two being built should be painted Grey, not Red. There is no reason why an AOPS patrol shouldn't start with being the first ship up the St Lawrence Seaway or end with being the last one out. Or being the first into, and last out of, Churchill.

The MCDVs, when they finish their time, they should be replaced by a similarly sized blue-water capable Patrol Vessel for Southern operations - but that would only require 2 or three to co-operate with allies in the Caribbean.
I think 2-3 hulls to replace the MCDV'S would be a bit light, especially if there are only 6 AOPS built. I'd say 5 would be the minimum number, but I'd also suggest they be all ported west coast, while the AOPS as a class move to Halifax, were that to come to pass.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
566
Points
1,060
Depends on how much mine warfare we want done and how much time we want to spend patrolling the Caribbean I suppose.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,495
Points
940
The AOP's have great crane capacity, can take a number of helicopters and has room for a number of remotely operated vessels. If we had a mine heavy tasking, two MCDV with an AOP's as the 'Mother ship" or flotilla leader/AOR would work and give the crews an area to stretch out on a long mission.
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
40
Points
280
Depends on how much mine warfare we want done and how much time we want to spend patrolling the Caribbean I suppose.
IMHO, I believe the CARRIBOPS stuff is as huge success story. It's tangible, impactful, can be carried out by lesser capability vessels, is appreciated by our neighbours and is (possibly most importantly) an easy story for John Q Public/que to understand. With the advent of standoff capability to handle mine warfare duties, I'd suggest the next generation of OPV be biased towards the mission profile of OP CARIBBE.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
566
Points
1,060
Probably particularly popular after a tour in the AOPS fleet.
 
Top