Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Cloud Cover]

When the Houthi’s and the Iranian ship start dropping sea mines in the Red Sea, is there any role for the MCDV in the clean up?

 

[Stoker]

When the Houthi’s and the Iranian ship start dropping sea mines in the Red Sea, is there any role for the MCDV in the clean up?

If SNMMCMG1 gets tasked with its disposal probably, although the type of disposal the Kingston Class can do is either moored mines or mines that are on the bottom.

 

[Halifax Tar]

If SNMMCMG1 gets tasked with its disposal probably, although the type of disposal the Kingston Class can do is either moored mines or mines that are on the bottom.

Do you guys still have and practice that stuff ?

For some reason I had it in my head it was a dropped skill set.

 

[Stoker]

Do you guys still have and practice that stuff ?

For some reason I had it in my head it was a dropped skill set.

Yes several ships are identified as high readiness MCM deployers and after a MCM focused WUPS deploy on OP REASSURANCE where they are part of the NATO MCM group. They only reconstituted the skills a few years ago.:

From a few years ago.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I liked Chris Parry’s analogy: if one compares the sea to the world wide web, the Houthi’s are like malware. Time to isolate and delete the virus.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I liked Chris Parry’s analogy: if one compares the sea to the world wide web, the Houthi’s are like malware. Time to isolate and delete the virus.

Deleting the Houthi will be hard. Rendering them ineffective at sea is doable.

 

[YZT580]

When the Houthi’s and the Iranian ship start dropping sea mines in the Red Sea, is there any role for the MCDV in the clean up?

assuming an MCDV is ready to sail and it departed within 48 hours when would it arrive in the Red Sea: two weeks? What defense it be able to put up against an aerial attack by Yemen? There are more suitable assets far closer than Halifax. Perhaps we would be better offering aerial surveillance which we do have.

 

[Stoker]

assuming an MCDV is ready to sail and it departed within 48 hours when would it arrive in the Red Sea: two weeks? What defense it be able to put up against an aerial attack by Yemen? There are more suitable assets far closer than Halifax. Perhaps we would be better offering aerial surveillance which we do have.

If one had to sail for MCM duties it would be sailing with a MCM task group similarly armed. That's why it has larger ships providing cover just like any other time it has operated with NATO. It probably would take 3 weeks to get to the red sea. This is highly unlikely as the ships operate with NATO.

 

[dimsum]

assuming an MCDV is ready to sail and it departed within 48 hours when would it arrive in the Red Sea: two weeks? What defense it be able to put up against an aerial attack by Yemen? There are more suitable assets far closer than Halifax. Perhaps we would be better offering aerial surveillance which we do have.

Our CP-140 fleet is pretty tapped out as it is. It would be OP IMPACT, part 2.

 

[YZT580]

If one had to sail for MCM duties it would be sailing with a MCM task group similarly armed. That's why it has larger ships providing cover just like any other time it has operated with NATO. It probably would take 3 weeks to get to the red sea. This is highly unlikely as the ships operate with NATO.

I have to ask: do we have any ships that could put to sea within a reasonable length of time: equipped and fully manned?

 

[Stoker]

I have to ask: do we have any ships that could put to sea within a reasonable length of time: equipped and fully manned?

Yes we maintain a ship on the East and West Coasts at all times ready to sail within hours. It is called the "ready duty ship"

 

[JLB50]

Yes we maintain a ship on the East and West Coasts at all times ready to sail within hours. It is called the "ready duty ship"

What a welcome relief to know we have one on each coast…also known as a Howdy Duty ship.

 

[Fabius]

Yes we maintain a ship on the East and West Coasts at all times ready to sail within hours. It is called the "ready duty ship"

The question though is what exactly are they ready for?
Responding to something Swiss Air like vs deploying across the pond into a high threat combat environment are very different.

Not saying that one is more important or achievable really but just that they are very different.

 

[Stoker]

The question though is what exactly are they ready for?
Responding to something Swiss Air like vs deploying across the pond into a high threat combat environment are very different.

Not saying that one is more important or achievable really but just that they are very different.

If your asking if we have a ship booted and spurred ready to go to war within hours we don't.

 

[Fabius]

Nor would I expect us to have one capable of doing so in hours. At least not in anything less than a period where we are expecting immediate hostile actions.
I’m not sure what would be reasonable for a resourced naval force, perhaps days to a week, in a relatively unexpected situation.

 

[YZT580]

Nor would I expect us to have one capable of doing so in hours. At least not in anything less than a period where we are expecting immediate hostile actions.
I’m not sure what would be reasonable for a resourced naval force, perhaps days to a week, in a relatively unexpected situation.

nor would I but loading stores, and a mission package would not require weeks of preparation. So with a 3 week estimate for the voyage itself and let us say a week maximum to load the necessary we would require a month to position in the Red Sea. Sending a few officers or perhaps a team from Petawawa would be a more appropriate response. The response by the GOC was/is logical. However, I thought that we were supposed to maintain at least one ship attached to the NATO fleet. Am I wrong? That ship should be able to join our allies rather quickly, depending on the fleet's location at the time with our duty ship sailing to take over our NATO slot. Again, am I armchair quarterbacking or would this be appropriate or do we have the physical ability to actually take this type of action?

 

[Stoker]

nor would I but loading stores, and a mission package would not require weeks of preparation. So with a 3 week estimate for the voyage itself and let us say a week maximum to load the necessary we would require a month to position in the Red Sea. Sending a few officers or perhaps a team from Petawawa would be a more appropriate response. The response by the GOC was/is logical. However, I thought that we were supposed to maintain at least one ship attached to the NATO fleet. Am I wrong? That ship should be able to join our allies rather quickly, depending on the fleet's location at the time with our duty ship sailing to take over our NATO slot. Again, am I armchair quarterbacking or would this be appropriate or do we have the physical ability to actually take this type of action?

Back in the day during the cold war we had ships that could deploy in a few days after taking on supplies and wartime ammunition, additionally we had ships at sea that could divert if needed and any one time several task groups at sea ready to go war. Additionally no issues with personnel. Ships were a lot easier to get ready to deploy.

Now if we had ships at sea doing non critical missions they sometimes could be diverted to another mission dependent on their readiness, much the same as we did with HMCS Halifax diverted from NATO to be the first ship on OP Apollo. We don't have ships continuously with NATO anymore, there are gaps and the Kingston Class now deploy yearly for 4 months as part of our NATO commitment because of the lack of available CPF's. If something major happened now we could get a small number of ships to sea in a few weeks perhaps, its not good.

 

[YZT580]

Back in the day during the cold war we had ships that could deploy in a few days after taking on supplies and wartime ammunition, additionally we had ships at sea that could divert if needed and any one time several task groups at sea ready to go war. Additionally no issues with personnel. Ships were a lot easier to get ready to deploy.

Now if we had ships at sea doing non critical missions they sometimes could be diverted to another mission dependent on their readiness, much the same as we did with HMCS Halifax diverted from NATO to be the first ship on OP Apollo. We don't have ships continuously with NATO anymore, there are gaps and the Kingston Class now deploy yearly for 4 months as part of our NATO commitment because of the lack of available CPF's. If something major happened now we could get a small number of ships to sea in a few weeks perhaps, its not good.

that's what I feared, thanks for the reply

 

[Underway]

I disagree somewhat with @Stoker 's assessment that the MCDV's are going to OP REASURANCE because of lack of CPFs. You have to include that the Gov't has decided that the Pacific needs more help then Europe does. As such Montreal deployed to Asia instead of Europe. And so 3 frigates in the Pacific on deployment at the same time.

So its two things, with CPF availability at its base.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Apparently HMCS Goose Bay is currently being painted up in the same scheme used on HMCS Moncton (pictured above) back for the 75th Anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. It is good to see these schemes return, they really make Canadian warships pop out from their fleet mates and allies abroad. I wish they would have made up a new scheme for a new ship instead of reusing the same one again but hey, I'll take it. The scheme used on HMCS Regina is being reapplied to HMCS Calgary now as well on the West Coast.