Kingston class: Upgrading the MCDVs.
- Thread starter Ex-Dragoon
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Interesting bit of trivia, and each site you look at on line will give you a different answer. The MAJESTIC class light carrier came with bofors, but the Bonnie did not. Some sources will state that, yes, they were there, and some will confrim just what Sledge said. The actual answer is in between, and it satisfies all theories and urban legends. Armament: 4x twin mountings, 3"-50cal. anti-aircraft guns (two removed after refit in 67). 8x 40 mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns. ( aapparently never installed )
From the DND site, : "When PROTECTEUR was first constructed she had a twin 3 inch (76mm) gun mounted on her bow. In 1983, they were removed as the guns were deemed as no longer being effective. When Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990, the Canadian Government decided to sent three ships; one of which was PROTECTEUR. Before being deployed twenty days later on 24 August 1990, PROTECTEUR was rearmed with the twin 3 inch gun, two CIWS (Close In Weapon Systems, a gun designed to destroy incoming missiles) and two Bofors 20mm guns. The Bofors guns were originally from the BONAVENTURE. After BONAVENTURE's decommissioning the guns were loaned to a Halifax museum and then borrowed back in 1990 for the Gulf War.
This leads me to believe that Bonnie came with 40mm, and they were left uncrated and/or used elsewhere.
From the DND site, : "When PROTECTEUR was first constructed she had a twin 3 inch (76mm) gun mounted on her bow. In 1983, they were removed as the guns were deemed as no longer being effective. When Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990, the Canadian Government decided to sent three ships; one of which was PROTECTEUR. Before being deployed twenty days later on 24 August 1990, PROTECTEUR was rearmed with the twin 3 inch gun, two CIWS (Close In Weapon Systems, a gun designed to destroy incoming missiles) and two Bofors 20mm guns. The Bofors guns were originally from the BONAVENTURE. After BONAVENTURE's decommissioning the guns were loaned to a Halifax museum and then borrowed back in 1990 for the Gulf War.
This leads me to believe that Bonnie came with 40mm, and they were left uncrated and/or used elsewhere.
- Reaction score
- 16,902
- Points
- 1,010
NO NO NO! this urban legend just will not go away...
I was the Air Defence Troop Commander on HMCS PROTECTEUR in 1990. The weapons techs (land) that installed the guns fell under my chain of command, mostly because the Navy did not know what to do with them. Anyway, the guns that were installed came from the airfield in Germany and were slated to be installed on the MCDVs, when they were built. They were NEVER, I repeat, NEVER in a museum.
Where this story got it's "museum" legs, is as follows:
During the installation process, one of the gun's hydraulic fittings was either missing or U/S. One of the techs remembered seeing a 40mm bofors up at the MARCOM museum, so he beetled up to see if he could steal a part. Turned out to be the wrong model of gun, so FMF built a new fitting. This story got told to the press, who somehow muddled it up or the reporter assumed that the gun on the ship was the same one in front of the MARCOM museum and... voila! Urban legend is born.
As an aside, the guns worked very well on PRO. We did a shoot one day against a surface target that involved several .50 cals, a 40mm and the 3'50" mount. The amount very accurate iron that went down range in a very short period of time was very impressive...
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,740
- Points
- 1,160
My understanding is that although the gun and mount are good, it becomes very difficult to use in anything greater than a moderate swell, but I suspect that the gunners also don't get as much time to train also, any comment on the above?
Before upgrading the MCDVs I'd first wait to see what we think of these new ORCAs (I'm getting excited). I've heard some interesting ideas about patroling with them. (You don't need much more then a 50cal to enforce fishing)
As for the MCDVs I don't think that its worth altering the weapons until someone figures something out about making them go faster.
As for the MCDVs I don't think that its worth altering the weapons until someone figures something out about making them go faster.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,740
- Points
- 1,160
Making a displacement hull go faster can be self-defeating. Computer modeling of the hull can be done to determine if changes to the engines or drive systems will gain any significant benefit without serious drawbacks. It becomes more and more expense to increase speed as you get close to maximum hull speed.
It may be possible to insert a section into the hull, which might give some speed benefits, but would be a significant cost.
Rarely does sea-keeping and speed go well together, even the US is still just playing with SWATH and other hull forms.
It may be possible to insert a section into the hull, which might give some speed benefits, but would be a significant cost.
Rarely does sea-keeping and speed go well together, even the US is still just playing with SWATH and other hull forms.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
As has been said many times before the MCDV's were cut back and that is why they only have a 15 knot cap. I don't know how much they left out off hand. I do know that it would cost a fortune to ramp up a refit program to extend the length and considering the condition of some of them it might be more cost effective to buy newer ships. Refit four to six even, sell the rest as surplus and find a newer model.
I'm always a little surprised when people say the MCDVs are too slow, or poor sea keepers in the open ocean, or inadequately armed. If I'm not mistaken they were originally designed to perform MCM ops in the approaches to harbours, for which their speed, design, and armament are more than adequate.
One of their main jobs now is MARS IV training (ie: navigation, contact avoidance, watchkeeping, manoeuvring for junior executive branch officers), and again their speed, design, and armament are more than adequate for that.
And they are a huge improvement over what the Naval Reserve used to have to sail around in: 126 foot gate vessels which were so old that one of them was originally commissioned as a "His Majesty's Canadian Ship".
One of their main jobs now is MARS IV training (ie: navigation, contact avoidance, watchkeeping, manoeuvring for junior executive branch officers), and again their speed, design, and armament are more than adequate for that.
And they are a huge improvement over what the Naval Reserve used to have to sail around in: 126 foot gate vessels which were so old that one of them was originally commissioned as a "His Majesty's Canadian Ship".
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,740
- Points
- 1,160
Phrontis
Yep, I remember the Gate vessels, minesweepers and YFP's doing the same tasks, the MCDV's are a significant step up, and the fact that they were armed is a huge change.
Yep, I remember the Gate vessels, minesweepers and YFP's doing the same tasks, the MCDV's are a significant step up, and the fact that they were armed is a huge change.
Yes, say what one will about the gate vessels (slow, ugly, etc.), they certainly provided decades of solid service to the naval reserve, and a whole hockey sock full of training.
(I heard a story once that the gate vessel HMCS PORTE QUEBEC was going to Seattle for a port visit. As she approached the assigned berth they could see quite a crowd on the jetty, including a band. As they came alongside someone stepped forward and told them they couldn't stop there as they were awaiting the arrival of HMCS QUEBEC. How embarrassing; someone had gotten ahold of an old copy of Janes and confused the gate vessel with the cruiser. I'd have been tempted to say "Okay" and just steam away over the horizon.)
All to say that the MCDVs are a hugely more shiplike and capable vessel. Yes, we can learn many lessons from them to apply in their eventual replacements, but we shouldn't under-rate what they have meant to the naval reserve in terms of providing meaningful missions, credibility, and professionalism.
(I heard a story once that the gate vessel HMCS PORTE QUEBEC was going to Seattle for a port visit. As she approached the assigned berth they could see quite a crowd on the jetty, including a band. As they came alongside someone stepped forward and told them they couldn't stop there as they were awaiting the arrival of HMCS QUEBEC. How embarrassing; someone had gotten ahold of an old copy of Janes and confused the gate vessel with the cruiser. I'd have been tempted to say "Okay" and just steam away over the horizon.)
All to say that the MCDVs are a hugely more shiplike and capable vessel. Yes, we can learn many lessons from them to apply in their eventual replacements, but we shouldn't under-rate what they have meant to the naval reserve in terms of providing meaningful missions, credibility, and professionalism.
