Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[KevinB]

I could see us having to go down the same path as we had to go down with the AOR’s, renting them from Chile/Spain, except we ‘rent’ a friendly nations frigate(s) to perform tasks within CDN national waters that we’d normally do once we don’t have the CPF numbers.
Either we do that, or we buy some 2nd hand ships from the US/Brits or someone else and run them for a 5-10yrs period until the 15 CSC’s are available.

The problem is that the RCN needs a much larger Navy than it has had in years.

15 CSC aren't even really going to fill the 4 280 and 12 CPF gap - simply due to 15 isn't 16.
Yes the CSC are more capable - but when you have the same asks, and less hulls, it means that the hulls need to do more.

If you have tasks for 16X, and you have 15X your putting more miles (or nautical miles) on the hulls - and you have less time to conduct maintenance as the hull needs to be in the water more often, as you have 93% of the hulls you have missions for.

Now if you take that 93% and you throw it on top of the pile of the MCDV and AOPV.
You had a mission for 16 Combatants, and 12 MCDV's.
So 28 hulls, and you take and spread that over 21 Hulls (15 CSC and 6 AOPS) - now you are 75% of you needed hulls.

This is where the ruthless nature of the lack of spares starts to kill - as you need* each of your hulls to now conduct 33% MORE than before.
*assuming the asks are the same.


Also several folks have already commented that the operating costs for the AOPS are vastly higher than the MCDV - now if you start needing CSC's to conduct roles of the MCDV - that mission cost is going to skyrocket.


Few militaries seem to grasp that the platform requirements really don't drop when you get a more capable system - sure it can do more, but it doesn't mean you need less of them -- and since you generally get less of the more expensive system - you need to then push them harder - and they last less than you had planned - and the cycle continues to count down to zero. The CAF just gets the worse deal - as it generally only replaces things years after it should have been - so the death spiral is getting worse and worse and worse.

 

[YZT580]

The problem is that the RCN needs a much larger Navy than it has had in years.

15 CSC aren't even really going to fill the 4 280 and 12 CPF gap - simply due to 15 isn't 16.
Yes the CSC are more capable - but when you have the same asks, and less hulls, it means that the hulls need to do more.

If you have tasks for 16X, and you have 15X your putting more miles (or nautical miles) on the hulls - and you have less time to conduct maintenance as the hull needs to be in the water more often, as you have 93% of the hulls you have missions for.

Now if you take that 93% and you throw it on top of the pile of the MCDV and AOPV.
You had a mission for 16 Combatants, and 12 MCDV's.
So 28 hulls, and you take and spread that over 21 Hulls (15 CSC and 6 AOPS) - now you are 75% of you needed hulls.

This is where the ruthless nature of the lack of spares starts to kill - as you need* each of your hulls to now conduct 33% MORE than before.
*assuming the asks are the same.


Also several folks have already commented that the operating costs for the AOPS are vastly higher than the MCDV - now if you start needing CSC's to conduct roles of the MCDV - that mission cost is going to skyrocket.


Few militaries seem to grasp that the platform requirements really don't drop when you get a more capable system - sure it can do more, but it doesn't mean you need less of them -- and since you generally get less of the more expensive system - you need to then push them harder - and they last less than you had planned - and the cycle continues to count down to zero. The CAF just gets the worse deal - as it generally only replaces things years after it should have been - so the death spiral is getting worse and worse and worse.

Serious question: is the Heddle proposal a logical solution?

 

[Furniture]

I guess my point is that there are many mundane tasks that no one knows about in my opinion important nevertheless. Kingston class has spread the navy to areas where CFFs or AOPS can't physically go and again wasting resources in a resource strapped navy.

My point is that a lot of those mundane tasks are likely to be dropped, so having a ship to do them is unnecessary, particularly when the ones that can't get dropped can be done by the AOPVs or CPFs.

I'm sorry if you think the Kingston class is not impressive or navy like to your liking but when the RCN needed them to step up they were plenty impressive and navy looking then.

You claim to not be letting emotions cloud your judgement in the last paragraph, but make this emotional argument in the first.

The MCDVs are less impressive to civilians than AOPVs and CPFs, regardless of the fact they did good work when required. I never said the MCDVs were bad ships, or failed to perform the tasks they were assigned.

The Kingston Class is a diesel electric ship and AOPV is operated in some areas similarly. They have in the past and currently providing engineering personnel and other trades to AOPVs. Any personnel going to a different class of ship needs to do a class package for the differences. We also have personnel in the Kingston Class who haven't come from a AOPV or CPF.

My point is that person have to learn three different classes of ship right now, which pulls them away from two main lines of effort. The CPFs aren't going away, and the AOPVs are new, so why keep a third class that demands the same resources as the combatant and the new class? Add in the new PRO class, and then it's four lines of training and support, splitting the resources even thinner.

People complain that the CAF didn't reconstitute, but when they CAF tried to reconstitute and refocus on the main lines of effort the complaints kick in about cutting a sacred cow.

No nothing wrong with my judgement just hate to see ships decommissioned that have significant life left and no effort made to keep them sailing. We won't bat an eye in spending upwards of half a billion on a multi year refit on ships that when out of refit can't go to sea.

You're already made an emotional argument in this reply, so clearly you are emotionally invested in the class...

The difference between befitting the CPFs and remitting the MCDVs is that the CPF is the platform we need to fight the next war, which might be sooner than we want. They will cost a lot of money, but what they bring to the fight is worth more than 12 pickups with a couple of .50 HMGs.

Going to sea is great, bringing effect to the fight at sea is greater.

 

[Underway]

My point is that a lot of those mundane tasks are likely to be dropped, so having a ship to do them is unnecessary, particularly when the ones that can't get dropped can be done by the AOPVs or CPFs.

They won't be dropped. They are never dropped. Probably because some MP wants them there. Glace Bay had some issues that needed to be dealt with. So the RCN is sending HDW on the Great Lakes Deployment instead (Mid Oct).

Is that an appropriate use of HDW right now? Is that an appropriate cost especially after they came and did the same thing last year? One could argue no its not, which is why the MCDV's were slated to come in the first place.

The difference between befitting the CPFs and remitting the MCDVs is that the CPF is the platform we need to fight the next war, which might be sooner than we want. They will cost a lot of money, but what they bring to the fight is worth more than 12 pickups with a couple of .50 HMGs.

What you fail to realize is the main effort of the RCN is not fighting the next war (though that is a line of effort). It's demonstrating and exercising sovereignty. Because that's the job we do every single time we leave the wall, no matter the size of the vessel, no matter what other task there is, and no matter where it is. Sovereignty is done with cheap and cheerful just as easily as a CPF. And more hulls mean more places. More places mean more tasks can be done.

Sovereignty is done by sailing around, showing people you know what's out there, sailing past showing that they know you're out there and doing the day to day mundane tasks required of navies to "keep the yard tidy". This stops squatters and allows for the heavy hitters to do heavy hitter stuff.

This is the fundamental disconnect between Army thinking and Navy thinking outside of conflict. Navies train while working. Armies train as work.

 

[Halifax Tar]

What you fail to realize is the main effort of the RCN is not fighting the next war (though that is a line of effort). It's demonstrating and exercising sovereignty. Because that's the job we do every single time we leave the wall, no matter the size of the vessel, no matter what other task there is, and no matter where it is. Sovereignty is done with cheap and cheerful just as easily as a CPF. And more hulls mean more places. More places mean more tasks can be done.

Sovereignty is done by sailing around, showing people you know what's out there, sailing past showing that they know you're out there and doing the day to day mundane tasks required of navies to "keep the yard tidy". This stops squatters and allows for the heavy hitters to do heavy hitter stuff.

This is the fundamental disconnect between Army thinking and Navy thinking outside of conflict. Navies train while working. Armies train as work.

You cant demonstrate your sovereignty unless you have the big stick. You can pretend sailing around little grey ships with really no armaments' is enough but that's just shitty foresight, hidden behind a veneer of ignorance.

The RCN is first and foremost an arm of the CAF and the GoC's warfighting organization at sea.

I know there was a lot of pride in what the MCDVs did, and those sailors should be proud. But the world is changing, war is coming and they are simply soft targets of little capability. Its time for them to go.

 

[Kirkhill]

You cant demonstrate your sovereignty unless you have the big stick. You can pretend sailing around little grey ships with really no armaments' is enough but that's just shitty foresight, hidden behind a veneer of ignorance.

The RCN is first and foremost an arm of the CAF and the GoC's warfighting organization at sea.

I know there was a lot of pride in what the MCDVs did, and those sailors should be proud. But the world is changing, war is coming and they are simply soft targets of little capability. Its time for them to go.

Mines are no longer a problem?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I know there was a lot of pride in what the MCDVs did, and those sailors should be proud. But the world is changing, war is coming and they are simply soft targets of little capability. Its time for them to go.

This is Canada, once you let go a capability, you will never get it back. You could easily put half the MCDV fleet on the hard, wrap them in storage for the next 5 year while you rebuild personal numbers. Then use the small yards to refit them and bring them online for these domestic tasks and things like mine clearance. If a conflict comes in the next decade, you are not going to get any new hulls.

 

[Kirkhill]

This is Canada, once you let go a capability, you will never get it back. You could easily put half the MCDV fleet on the hard, wrap them in storage for the next 5 year while you rebuild personal numbers. Then use the small yards to refit them and bring them online for these domestic tasks and things like mine clearance. If a conflict comes in the next decade, you are not going to get any new hulls.

If necessary take them right down to the keel plate with the registration number and rebuild them with new material.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If necessary take them right down to the keel plate with the registration number and rebuild them with new material.

Works better for airplanes ( DHC Beavers we are looking at you)

 

[NavyShooter]

The thing is, from the public's eye, an MCDV or an AOPS is equivalent to a Frigate.

It's gray, it's got a Radar on top, it's got weapons, it's got (some) sailors, and it's got a Canadian Flag on it.

From the public's POV, every ship we have which meets that criteria is a warship.

The reality is that our CPF's are practically clapped out due to wear and tear, the AOPS has a pop-gun, and the MCDV's barely have a pop-gun.

Until the public understands the difference and makes the deficiencies important to our government, then it won't be a priority to fix.

MCDV's have been outstanding value for money, particularly based on crew size and operating costs. Punching well above their weight (literally) in terms of what we've asked them to do overseas for us. They have done so much more than just being a "Coastal Defense Vessel."

That said, looking ahead to the future, the friendly world of the 90's with port visits in the former USSR, and us hosting Russian warships in Halifax is a long way in the past. The likelihood of a legit shooting war between major powers is higher than I can remember it being for decades, and sending a glorified icebreaker or a mine-sweeper in the place of an actual warship is putting our sailors in harm's way in a BAD way.

Modern wars happen with whatever you happen to have onhand. Not what you can build in 8 years.

 

[Kirkhill]

Works better for airplanes ( DHC Beavers we are looking at you)

Mayhap but it also worked for all the European trawlers built for the Alaskan fishery in the 90s. Most of them started as Gulf of Mexico mud boats that were transported to Norway or Germany and remanufactured.

 

[Stoker]

My point is that a lot of those mundane tasks are likely to be dropped, so having a ship to do them is unnecessary, particularly when the ones that can't get dropped can be done by the AOPVs or CPFs.

You claim to not be letting emotions cloud your judgement in the last paragraph, but make this emotional argument in the first.

The MCDVs are less impressive to civilians than AOPVs and CPFs, regardless of the fact they did good work when required. I never said the MCDVs were bad ships, or failed to perform the tasks they were assigned.


My point is that person have to learn three different classes of ship right now, which pulls them away from two main lines of effort. The CPFs aren't going away, and the AOPVs are new, so why keep a third class that demands the same resources as the combatant and the new class? Add in the new PRO class, and then it's four lines of training and support, splitting the resources even thinner.

People complain that the CAF didn't reconstitute, but when they CAF tried to reconstitute and refocus on the main lines of effort the complaints kick in about cutting a sacred cow.rk

You're already made an emotional argument in this reply, so clearly you are emotionally invested in the class...

The difference between befitting the CPFs and remitting the MCDVs is that the CPF is the platform we need to fight the next war, which might be sooner than we want. They will cost a lot of money, but what they bring to the fight is worth more than 12 pickups with a couple of .50 HMGs.

Going to sea is great, bringing effect to the fight at sea is greater.

Like others have said those tasks won't be dropped, in fact as recruiting efforts ramp certainly there will be more tasks coming down the pike freeing up high valve assets to do other work.

Civilians don't know a warship from a hole in the ground and all the tours I saw they were either impressed or indifferent. We can have multiple classes of ship and no you do not need the same resources at all, cheap to maintain and operate as the class doesn't take away a lot from FMF as they are maintained via ISSC.

I suppose I am emotionally attached, one time we called that ownership and if we had more ownership in the RCN things would be a lot better in my opinion.

I'm a realist and I know the classes days are numbered however the case is there to maintain some of the class at least for the next 5 to 10 years.

 

[Stoker]

The thing is, from the public's eye, an MCDV or an AOPS is equivalent to a Frigate.

It's gray, it's got a Radar on top, it's got weapons, it's got (some) sailors, and it's got a Canadian Flag on it.

From the public's POV, every ship we have which meets that criteria is a warship.

The reality is that our CPF's are practically clapped out due to wear and tear, the AOPS has a pop-gun, and the MCDV's barely have a pop-gun.

Until the public understands the difference and makes the deficiencies important to our government, then it won't be a priority to fix.

MCDV's have been outstanding value for money, particularly based on crew size and operating costs. Punching well above their weight (literally) in terms of what we've asked them to do overseas for us. They have done so much more than just being a "Coastal Defense Vessel."

That said, looking ahead to the future, the friendly world of the 90's with port visits in the former USSR, and us hosting Russian warships in Halifax is a long way in the past. The likelihood of a legit shooting war between major powers is higher than I can remember it being for decades, and sending a glorified icebreaker or a mine-sweeper in the place of an actual warship is putting our sailors in harm's way in a BAD way.

Modern wars happen with whatever you happen to have onhand. Not what you can build in 8 years.

I don't think we'll ever send AOPV or Kingston Class into harms way unless you count Reassurance as a MCM asset.

 

[Stoker]

You cant demonstrate your sovereignty unless you have the big stick. You can pretend sailing around little grey ships with really no armaments' is enough but that's just shitty foresight, hidden behind a veneer of ignorance.

The RCN is first and foremost an arm of the CAF and the GoC's warfighting organization at sea.

I know there was a lot of pride in what the MCDVs did, and those sailors should be proud. But the world is changing, war is coming and they are simply soft targets of little capability. Its time for them to go.

All navies have some targets to one degree or another. If something kicked off I would imagine they would all tied up or local area. Training will still need to be done and other routine tasks while the combatants go to sea.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Many years ago the CF was allowed, maybe even encouraged, to talk about their requirements in public and the Navy, at least actually published a shiny paper (does Leadmark ring a bell with anyone?) - sure, maybe it looked a bit like the Sears Christmas Wish Book, but my memory says that it made pretty cogent case for a fleet of 10 to 15 major surface combatants - destroyers/frigates - and as many minor combatants - corvettes? - and some submarines and oilers and training vessels and so on.

I think the authors were pretty level headed and many of their conclusions still seem, to me, to stand up 30 years after the fact.

 

[QV]

You cant demonstrate your sovereignty unless you have the big stick. You can pretend sailing around little grey ships with really no armaments' is enough but that's just shitty foresight, hidden behind a veneer of ignorance.

The RCN is first and foremost an arm of the CAF and the GoC's warfighting organization at sea.

I know there was a lot of pride in what the MCDVs did, and those sailors should be proud. But the world is changing, war is coming and they are simply soft targets of little capability. Its time for them to go.

MCDVs in any other role than coastal patrol & mine clearance are Potemkin boats. But don't get rid of them, we'll probably need every hull we can get in the water in the next few years.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Mines are no longer a problem?

I stand to be corrected but I don't think we do much mine sweeping anymore. And I think most of the gear is gone.

This is Canada, once you let go a capability, you will never get it back. You could easily put half the MCDV fleet on the hard, wrap them in storage for the next 5 year while you rebuild personal numbers. Then use the small yards to refit them and bring them online for these domestic tasks and things like mine clearance. If a conflict comes in the next decade, you are not going to get any new hulls.

I can see the case for keeping the MCDVs for inland training, say on the great lakes.

 

[Stoker]

MCDVs in any other role than coastal patrol & mine clearance are Potemkin boats. But don't get rid of them, we'll probably need every hull we can get in the water in the next few years.

That's all they do really in a nutshell. Fine for Caribbes, modular payloads, side scan sonar etc. No designed or envisioned to go to war.

 

[Stoker]

I stand to be corrected but I don't think we do much mine sweeping anymore. And I think most of the gear is gone.



I can see the case for keeping the MCDVs for inland training, say on the great lakes.

The sweep gear has been paid off years ago. They now do side scan operations, REMUS, MCM diving operations and at some point new to us MCM technology.

 

[Underway]

You cant demonstrate your sovereignty unless you have the big stick.

The functions of government and governing are one of the main legal demonstrations of sovereignty. The original demonstration of sovereignty in Baffin Island for example was a Canada Postal Service post office (that from what I can tell, they didn't do much work) showing that Canada was governing there.

You can't enforce sovereignty without the ability to exercise force (constabulary or military). I know it seems like semantics but its an important distinction.

This is why the race for icebreakers and research vessels for the Arctic. Just having the Coast guard doing government stuff re-enforces our claims. Because when we stop and China does more research then us they could more easily challenge our claim.