Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Cloud Cover]

For the love of Triton do not build a unicorn non-upgradable class of ships again. Join the Euro program and build our share of platforms here, maybe have Fincanteri or similar invest in Heddle.

 

[Halifax Tar]

For the love of Triton do not build a unicorn non-upgradable class of ships again. Join the Euro program and build our share of platforms here, maybe have Fincanteri or similar invest in Heddle.

The problem is we don't build ships to create a formidable Navy. We build ships to buy votes and give people like the Irving's money.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Two issues here:

First, did anyone figure out what the purpose of these platforms would be, i.e. what defense need are they supposed to fulfil.

And two, does anyone realize that these vessels would fall outside the definition of minor war vessels, and therefore would require a full surface command certificate. This means that we would have a Navy with no minor warships to provide junior command experience in advance of getting a major surface command.

 

[Rainbow1910]

For the love of Triton do not build a unicorn non-upgradable class of ships again. Join the Euro program and build our share of platforms here, maybe have Fincanteri or similar invest in Heddle.

It is something to remember that this program is going to have to replace the mine warfare capabilities of the MCDV's as well, so something like the European Patrol Corvette is not going to work due to a lack of multi-mission area for said equipment.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Two issues here:

First, did anyone figure out what the purpose of these platforms would be, i.e. what defense need are they supposed to fulfil.

And two, does anyone realize that these vessels would fall outside the definition of minor war vessels, and therefore would require a full surface command certificate. This means that we would have a Navy with no minor warships to provide junior command experience in advance of getting a major surface command.

We went decades without that.

 

[Kirkhill]

Two issues here:

First, did anyone figure out what the purpose of these platforms would be, i.e. what defense need are they supposed to fulfil.

And two, does anyone realize that these vessels would fall outside the definition of minor war vessels, and therefore would require a full surface command certificate. This means that we would have a Navy with no minor warships to provide junior command experience in advance of getting a major surface command.

Would that depend on the "cargo" back aft?

What certificate would be required if there were no missiles on board?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

It's not the missiles per se. Minor warship is defined by exclusions: If it has AAW weapons systems or is air capable (can carry a helo was the original intent, don't know where the RCN stands on unmanned air assets, except that some were tested and carried on the MCDV's and they remained classified as minor warships. Basically ships that can only do surface warfare, even with missiles, would be an minor warship. There are no tonnage limits so, theoretically, when the AOPS are not planning on letting an aircraft onboard, they could be minor warships.

The whole thing is a mess because the people that redrafted the regulation tried to make a " general description" of what is what instead of just saying something like "MCDV's and Orca's are minor warships or tenders, everything else requires a full surface command certificate", which would have been clearer and easy to follow.

 

[Underway]

We went decades without that.

I second this comment. Plenty of current frigate CO's have never taken an MCDV out for a spin as the CO. It's not a requirement. And pleny of MCDV CO's have never made it to frigate CO. It's a nice to have not a need to have.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Considering its only been a few years since the Reg Force took the MCDV's over, I don't see how "plenty" can be that many. Nevertheless, if that is the case, have you ever wondered why that is that "plenty" of them didn't make it to Co of frigates? Maybe its because their stint as MCDV CO's demonstrated they were not CO material in he end.

In any event the only reason minor warship command was not available for "decades" is entirely the choice of the Reg Force. When the 12 MCDV's were acquired, they were to replace the 12 other minor warships in service then - six of which, the PB's (the old Bay class minesweepers) were operated and manned by the Reg Force. 6 of the MCDV's were originally slated to replace the PB's and be operated by the Reg Force but some smart ass decided they should all go to the reserves since they were for "coastal" defense. As we now know (and many in the reserves had predicted) this almost broke the naval reserve's back.

 

[FJAG]

some smart ass decided they should all go to the reserves since they were for "coastal" defense. As we now know (and many in the reserves had predicted) this almost broke the naval reserve's back.

Shortly after the MCDVs came out I was assigned as one of the ResF legal officer to advise the Reserve Force Employment Program which was one of those bright NDHQ sparks designed to make the ResF "better."

My first round-table meeting with the project staff quickly made it clear to me that the major driving force behind the project was the RCN which wanted a ResF service system that made manning the MCDVs more "efficient." I won't bore you with the details but things basically didn't change.

The only reservist I ever saw get his ticket and skipper one was a lawyer from Edmonton who took a year off from his law firm to qualify and then spend a tour on one for something like six months.

It struck me from what I learned from the project and from his description of his tour that it was another attempt by the CF (read RCN) to pretend that reservists are of minor value unless they do something on a full-time basis. That was reinforced a few years later as we were ramping up Afghanistan and when I was sitting on Chief Reserves and Cadets Council and was told point blank at a briefing by the CDS's staff that the model for reserve service should be that every six years a reservist needed to put in a year of full-rime service.

Sigh.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Considering its only been a few years since the Reg Force took the MCDV's over, I don't see how "plenty" can be that many. Nevertheless, if that is the case, have you ever wondered why that is that "plenty" of them didn't make it to Co of frigates? Maybe its because their stint as MCDV CO's demonstrated they were not CO material in he end.

In any event the only reason minor warship command was not available for "decades" is entirely the choice of the Reg Force. When the 12 MCDV's were acquired, they were to replace the 12 other minor warships in service then - six of which, the PB's (the old Bay class minesweepers) were operated and manned by the Reg Force. 6 of the MCDV's were originally slated to replace the PB's and be operated by the Reg Force but some smart ass decided they should all go to the reserves since they were for "coastal" defense. As we now know (and many in the reserves had predicted) this almost broke the naval reserve's back.

Two of my Joint Staff College mates, one a diver and one a Comm/EW wizard, had each done their "command' tours on the Bay Class vessels.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Re: FJAG's last post above: Sounds about right in reference to the attitude I have noted before.

 

[Navy_Pete]

True, but the new sub program started the exact same way. When the gov't decided they wanted subs the RCN office had already some research done.

Way more projects that went no where also started the same way. Options analysis starts when a project is funded, this is pre-options analysis being paid out of misc O&M with personnel diverted from other postings.

None of it means anything until its in the investment plan and part of the future fleet plan and NSS.

Also, RCN has no sailors for existing fleet, let alone current future fleet, so expanding the number of subs and growing the MCDV replacement to a bigger ship that needs more crew is delusional.