Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[GR66]

The sailors of Newfoundland Marine Services?

View attachment 77924
Main Details:
Vessel Name: Palaimon
Year of Construction: 2004
Class: Lloyd's Register 100A1 0SV

Dimensions:
LO.A: 62.5 m
Width: 12 .8m
Draught:
Light 2.2 m
Heavy 4.7 m

Gross Tonnage (ITC 69): 1237
Net Tonnage: 395

NL Marine Services – NL Marine Services

nlmarineservices.com

The Concept of Operations the Dutch are proposing for this Optionally Manned Vessel is that it will sail in close proximity to a Mother Ship. The TRIFIC ships will sail in company with Mother and I suppose the crews will be housed in Mother with only short term accommodation on board.
The vessel then become a very large sea-boat that keeps pace with Mother rather than being swayed or floated aboard.

Ultimately the crew may only go aboard for maintenance, supervision of firings and to keep any Marines aboard company.

That might be a little slow to keep up with a CSC, but the NorCan 222 is similar in size but has a max speed of 34 knots (economical speed of 27 knots) and a range of 5,000nm. And it's a company in PEI that says it delivers first ship in 20 months from signing of contract.

 

[Stoker]

Yes, bow thruster is the other conventional option.

Harry DeWolf class, as an example, has bow thruster in conjunction with rudders and screws.

Orcas and CPFs, at 300 and 5000 tons, rely only on rudders and screws.

No HMC ship has proper dynamic positioning (even an attentively manoeuvred MCDV will drift slowly and require repositioning) and I don't see the need for it on the MCDV replacement. The new class would be adapted for drone deployment and those drones can take on minesweeping tasks. As far as I'm aware, the requirement for azipods was borne out of those tasks specifically.

There are other advantages to azipods, but I'm no naval architect so I won't deep dive into that. Point being, if it makes sense for the ship to have them from an engineering perspective, then sure, but I don't see it being identified as a requirement per se.

Bow thruster and dynamic positioning was supposed to be installed in the Kingston Class for many of the payloads the ship carried over the years DSIS, BOIV among others where a static position would be helpful. It wasn't, however several years ago when the class got a new generation digital steering system it was supposed to be the first step in finally upgrading to a bow thruster. It was finally shut down due to cost and the life of the class remaining.

The ship operates as a MCM platform maneuvering outside mine danger zones operating the REMUS and now will eventually operate the Sea fox where dynamic positioning will be very useful.

There are people looking at a Kingston Class replacement although no official project is stood up yet.

Any class replacement is not going to have all the bells and whistles, so dreams of MCM drones is not going to happen in my opinion.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The replacement

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Maybe replace 1-2 MCDV with a leased vessel similar to this. Replace the others with River Class batch II type vessels and a few vessels similar in size to the current MCDV's with navigation training, route survey and mine clearance as their core jobs.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I think the issue with replacing the MCDVs is we've run out of people, which is too bad as they bring a lot to the table, but we'll need to start doing something fairly drastic to crew the incoming AOPs and JSS, while keeping the CPFs going.

 

[GR66]

I think the issue with replacing the MCDVs is we've run out of people, which is too bad as they bring a lot to the table, but we'll need to start doing something fairly drastic to crew the incoming AOPs and JSS, while keeping the CPFs going.

Where do you file the fact that we're replacing 12 x Halifax Class each with a nominal complement of 225 (2,700 pers total) with 15 x CSCs each with a nominal complement of 210 (3,150 pers total), a 17% increase in total personnel requirement?

Militaries throughout the West have had problems meeting recruiting targets for a number of years. Retention is also a know issue. I wonder what the plan was to deal with the increased manning requirements despite these problems? Did they have plans in place for increased recruiting, more training spaces, etc., or was there a bit of wishful thinking that "the deficit (in personnel) will take care of itself?".

 

[NavyShooter]

The budget will balance itself....

The personnel issues will balance themselves....

We'll grow the economy from the heart...

We'll grow the fleet from the heart...

Simple as that!

 

[KevinB]

The budget will balance itself....

The personnel issues will balance themselves....

We'll grow the economy from the heart...

We'll grow the fleet from the heart...

Simple as that!

I find it interesting to note the USMC hit targets for recruitment and retention for both Active and Reserve Components, at Enlisted and Officer as well.

I like using the USMC as an example, for unlike the Army, USN or USAF didn’t have the same issues wrt personnel, but operates in the same manner of service and fiscal limitations.

Which I tend to believe proves that it’s the means of messaging not solely the message (if that makes sense).

Frankly I used to think the CF (back when the A was ignored) had much better recruiting efforts back in the 80’s and 90’s than it seems to today (I have tried searching for CAF recruiting stuff and it doesn’t seem to generate much outside just taking you to the CAF Recruiting Website
- which IMHO sucks

Fantastic job getting a U.S. Army UH-60 in a CAF recruiting spot.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well at least they didn't use Russian soldiers......

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think the issue with replacing the MCDVs is we've run out of people, which is too bad as they bring a lot to the table, but we'll need to start doing something fairly drastic to crew the incoming AOPs and JSS, while keeping the CPFs going.

Which is why I suggest in the case of this, it would be 2 hulls for 1. A commercial ship like this would run with about 5 officers and 10 crew.

 

[Dana381]

Where do you file the fact that we're replacing 12 x Halifax Class each with a nominal complement of 225 (2,700 pers total) with 15 x CSCs each with a nominal complement of 210 (3,150 pers total), a 17% increase in total personnel requirement?

Militaries throughout the West have had problems meeting recruiting targets for a number of years. Retention is also a know issue. I wonder what the plan was to deal with the increased manning requirements despite these problems? Did they have plans in place for increased recruiting, more training spaces, etc., or was there a bit of wishful thinking that "the deficit (in personnel) will take care of itself?".

Trudeau's liberals have taken care of the manning issue. By the time those ships come online and the crews will be needed the economy will be so bad that it will be the best paying job in town for a lot of Canada.

 

[dapaterson]

Trudeau's liberals have taken care of the manning issue. By the time those ships come online and the crews will be needed the economy will be so bad that it will be the best paying job in town for a lot of Canada.

Canada

June 2015: 5.8% unemployment
June 2023: 5.2% unemployment

 

[Navy_Pete]

Where do you file the fact that we're replacing 12 x Halifax Class each with a nominal complement of 225 (2,700 pers total) with 15 x CSCs each with a nominal complement of 210 (3,150 pers total), a 17% increase in total personnel requirement?

Militaries throughout the West have had problems meeting recruiting targets for a number of years. Retention is also a know issue. I wonder what the plan was to deal with the increased manning requirements despite these problems? Did they have plans in place for increased recruiting, more training spaces, etc., or was there a bit of wishful thinking that "the deficit (in personnel) will take care of itself?".

Day drink?

Honestly that's a longer term issue that will come up after I retire, but has been on the radar for at least 10 years with no substantial change, so at this point I have moved that to 'not my problem (right now)'.

We continue to fail to meet recruiting numbers and retention numbers, and somehow figure things will work themselves out, so not really much I can do about it. In the interim, best I can figure out is to try and look at the ship crewing levels we do have, at the actual material state they are in, and try and raise it up at that point where I may have a small chance of actually influencing anything. But when you look at a bunch of broken things, realize the mitigations need 20 concurrent people, we only have 10, and no one cares that the mitigations are just BS, I really don't know what else to do (other than update my resume and try and get free of the system).

The CSCs are also a far more complex design, so aside from the actual onboard crew, will need a bigger shore support footprint and more maintenance (which will take longer because of more interference items), which is another area we are shrinking in and losing expertise without passing the knowledge on.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Which is why I suggest in the case of this, it would be 2 hulls for 1. A commercial ship like this would run with about 5 officers and 10 crew.

Sure, but it would be doing commercial things. We don't have commercial crew levels because we aren't doing commercial things with the ships. A replacement would at least give us a chance to update the design to add more automation and maybe use a higher standard than what it was built to to make it survivable with less people on board, but we won't do that, and would instead blindly do whatever a class society recommends because we're SmARt CuSTomaRs!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Sure, but it would be doing commercial things. We don't have commercial crew levels because we aren't doing commercial things with the ships. A replacement would at least give us a chance to update the design to add more automation and maybe use a higher standard than what it was built to to make it survivable with less people on board, but we won't do that, and would instead blindly do whatever a class society recommends because we're SmARt CuSTomaRs!

I get that, but it gives you a baseline of what it takes to do the minimum and then build your crew from there. Also you note this ship is run by the RFA and not the RN.

 

[DBNSG]

Canada

June 2015: 5.8% unemployment
June 2023: 5.2% unemployment

Now find out how many Baby Boomers have retired in the same time frame. Please.

 

[Dana381]

Canada

June 2015: 5.8% unemployment
June 2023: 5.2% unemployment

Where did you get those numbers? Stats Can? Media?
Stats Can is government, media is bought and paid for. Neither can be trusted. They have both proven that repeatedly.

Jobs are plentiful right now but inflation is taking off drastically and will for quite a while. It will drive us into a major recession, how ever they have already changed the definition of recession to hide that fact. Trudeau's money printing quantitive easing will make sure of that. From what I understand it takes around 5 years for the effects of money printing to set in fully.

Stats Can also says inflation is low right now but they just keep changing the way its calculated to make it look low. Have you been to the grocery store lately? Try telling my wife who buys food for 10 people that the inflation rate is low. Just let me pop some popcorn first.

 

[Furniture]

Now find out how many Baby Boomers have retired in the same time frame. Please.

Where did you get those numbers? Stats Can? Media?
Stats Can is government, media is bought and paid for. Neither can be trusted. They have both proven that repeatedly.

Jobs are plentiful right now but inflation is taking off drastically and will for quite a while. It will drive us into a major recession, how ever they have already changed the definition of recession to hide that fact. Trudeau's money printing quantitive easing will make sure of that. From what I understand it takes around 5 years for the effects of money printing to set in fully.

Stats Can also says inflation is low right now but they just keep changing the way its calculated to make it look low. Have you been to the grocery store lately? Try telling my wife who buys food for 10 people that the inflation rate is low. Just let me pop some popcorn first.

I think the point was more that unemployment won't be riding to the rescue of the CAF anytime soon.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Canada

June 2015: 5.8% unemployment
June 2023: 5.2% unemployment

What you really want to look at, from a true economic sense, is productivity. Looking at unemployment rate gives an incomplete picture and a false sense of comfort.

Have a look at this chart, it’s a much better representation of how far Canada has fallen and looks to continue to fall.

Google Image Result for https://policyoptions.irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/04/gagne3-new.jpg

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think the point was more that unemployment won't be riding to the rescue of the CAF anytime soon.

We could fill a Rifle Battalion with Gurkha's partnering with the UK on their process. We could build on bringing in sailors from other nations like the Philippines to fill out our numbers. Yes you won't be getting all the technical people you need, but it will help.