Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[GR66]

If the Kingston's still have that much life in them and serve useful peacetime roles then who says we need to get rid of them when we get whatever replaces them? Tie them up and use them when appropriate and use the Rivers/AOPS/Kingston-replacements when appropriate. Nothing says we have to get rid of what we can't fully man at a given time.

15 x CSC's
12 x Kingston-replacement Corvettes
6 x AOPS
12 x MCDV's
12 x Subs

Those are the ships you have available. They are the tools in the shed. Put to sea the ones you need at the time with the personnel you have available. It's like deploying Infantry in a LAV, TAPV, BvS10, G-Wagon, CH-147 or RHIB depending on the situation.

Of course we should strive to increase our available personnel to be able to equip as much of the fleet as possible, but that can be worked on over time.

Why are we as a military/government/country so damned closed minded in our thinking?

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

How about a couple on The Bay?

 

[Furniture]

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.

So if it was appropriate to use HDW last year, why is it inappropriate now? Also, WIL was just in Montreal on the same tour the Glace Bay was too broken to do, so there was already an AOPV on the job.

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).

The RCN enforces sovereignty by being ready to fight the next war. If we just need to wave a flag, we have the CCG, DFO, RCMP, and Canada Post for that.

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.

Any civilian likely to join the CAF via a recruiting visit knows enough. It's like saying a LUVW is the same as a LEO 2 for recruiting... People will usually be polite, but that doesn't mean they are impressed or unaware. That's not a knock against the MCDVs or LUVW, just a reality that fighting kit is always cooler than support kit.

If the Kingston's still have that much life in them and serve useful peacetime roles then who says we need to get rid of them when we get whatever replaces them?

They could have more life left in them, if we invest a lot of money in them to keep them running. That means less money for the main effort, keeping the CPFs afloat and ready to fight if needed.

In an ideal world the MCDVs would be handed down to a storage/training depot and kept in case of emergency, but we can't afford that and don't have the people to do it either.

 

[Underway]

Netherlands firms up plans for multifunction support vessels - Naval News

Some ideas for MCDV replacement, though these seem more like a task group ordinance augmentation task.

 

[Furniture]

Netherlands firms up plans for multifunction support vessels - Naval News

Some ideas for MCDV replacement, though these seem more like a task group ordinance augmentation task.

A flatbed that can take containerized weapons can take containers for other systems as well.

I'd rather us buy 6 of those to augment the APOVs and RCDs than keep the MCDVs around.

 

[Underway]

A flatbed that can take containerized weapons can take containers for other systems as well.

I'd rather us buy 6 of those to augment the APOVs and RCDs than keep the MCDVs around.

I love those things already. If they can also make a lot of noise and a big wake then trail behind the destroyer when torps are inbound I'm sure the destroyer would appreciate it. Also lead through for mined areas.

 

[KevinB]

I suspect that the CRCN knows how much the GoC is interested in the Military -- I suspect that the CCA and CRCAF (and their staff) are also tuned to that -- so any removal of hulls, airframes, tanks etc ends up be a net negative to the next replacement.

Once you show you can do X for a period of time (even a short period of time) the GoC tends to want to fund that minimum. If the RCN shows that it can function without - well it is game over.

I would assume that is why none of the CPF's have been paid off yet.

The RCN is in trouble as nearly all of their hulls are at EoL, and some had already been paid off before their replacements.
The AOPS were basically a bonus, but they don't replace the 4 280's, and the 2 Protecteur class, that gap has been an issue for a decade.

So you need 10-15 OPV to simply replace the MCDV role and stop the AOPS and Surface Combatants from being flogged to an early death. That is simply the logistics fact -- to me ideally it would be capable of some combatant tasks as well.

The Sub program is it's own thing (and honestly I believe to be a waste for Canada to buy into a non Nuke boat due to range/speed and under ice requirements due to Canada's geography) as a Sub isn't a patrol vessel - as it isn't going to be surfacing for boardings etc.

Like @Edward Campbell mentions above - there is a lot of logic behind a 30 combatant craft RCN (50:50 Destroyer/Frigate and Minor) with additional non combatant craft.

 

[Edward Campbell]

As Eliza Dolittle sang, "words, words words .."

If anyone has some useful ideas or just an informed opinion then tell the putative next Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Poilievre, AND the team that hopes to elect a Conservative MP in your riding.

Otherwise, as she sang, "is that all you blighters can do?"

 

[Navy_Pete]

At the end of the day, really doesn't matter how much money we pour into the MCDVs, we don't have the sailors to operate the current fleet, let alone accept more AOPs and the JSSs. I think they are a great platform, and we should have replaced them vice gotten AOPVs, but the GoC wanted us to have an Artic presence, so here we are.

The MCDVs were supposed to be paid off 10 years ago, so they are already on their 9th life. We should also shitcan the Oriole for similar reasons, but some Admirals love that stupid thing (even if it's an expensive deathtrap no one actually cares about that provides almost no real training or recruiting value).

 

[Stoker]

At the end of the day, really doesn't matter how much money we pour into the MCDVs, we don't have the sailors to operate the current fleet, let alone accept more AOPs and the JSSs. I think they are a great platform, and we should have replaced them vice gotten AOPVs, but the GoC wanted us to have an Artic presence, so here we are.

The MCDVs were supposed to be paid off 10 years ago, so they are already on their 9th life. We should also shitcan the Oriole for similar reasons, but some Admirals love that stupid thing (even if it's an expensive deathtrap no one actually cares about that provides almost no real training or recruiting value).

Yes as someone who has sailed in Oriole I was less than impressed with their FF set up.

 

[dapaterson]

Plus side: fewer fires on Oriole than on the CPFs.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Plus side: fewer fires on Oriole than on the CPFs or the JSS or the Subs.

There, FTFY

 

[Brad Sallows]

But shipboard fire is a handy way of retaining a nostalgic respect for and attachment to the age of wooden ships.

(Although I would not be surprised to be advised that modern shipboard fires short of getting into the magazine, are worse than plain wood and linen and tar fires.)

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The MCDVs were supposed to be paid off 10 years ago, so they are already on their 9th life. We should also shitcan the Oriole for similar reasons, but some Admirals love that stupid thing (even if it's an expensive deathtrap no one actually cares about that provides almost no real training or recruiting value).

NP, I joined the naval reserve in 1975, at which time we were told that the 25 years old Gate vessels and PB's (the old Bay class minesweepers) were going to be retired and replaced within 5 years - but the plan fell through, then, about 8 years later, we were told they were going to be replaced by the end of the decade with small patrol vessels (that would be NLT 1989), but that fell through - Then, finally, in 1985, for the Navy's 75th anniversary, we were told that yet another new project for a coastal patrol/mine warfare vessel would be started to replace them by 1990. That time, they almost got it right, and we got the MCDV in the mid 90's, by which time the GV and PB's were almost 45 years old.

So just don't be surprised if the MCDV's outlast the HAL's.

P.S.: ORIOLE is a steel-hulled sailing vessel. You can burn everything within that hull and they will still chose to rebuild her.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Oriole is to small to be a decent training ship. Need something a bit bigger and different rig.

 

[suffolkowner]

If the Kingston's still have that much life in them and serve useful peacetime roles then who says we need to get rid of them when we get whatever replaces them? Tie them up and use them when appropriate and use the Rivers/AOPS/Kingston-replacements when appropriate. Nothing says we have to get rid of what we can't fully man at a given time.

15 x CSC's
12 x Kingston-replacement Corvettes
6 x AOPS
12 x MCDV's
12 x Subs

Those are the ships you have available. They are the tools in the shed. Put to sea the ones you need at the time with the personnel you have available. It's like deploying Infantry in a LAV, TAPV, BvS10, G-Wagon, CH-147 or RHIB depending on the situation.

Of course we should strive to increase our available personnel to be able to equip as much of the fleet as possible, but that can be worked on over time.

Why are we as a military/government/country so damned closed minded in our thinking?

seems like too many ships to me. We're going to go from 12 Kingstons to 30 combined non warships? Are we going to do all this with the 2 AOR's?

4 AOR's
15 CSC's
6 AOPS's
8 Kingston replacements
8 SSK's

 

[Rainbow1910]

Oriole is to small to be a decent training ship. Need something a bit bigger and different rig.

I have never understood the reasoning behind keeping Oriole around, she is a very small and incredibly unimpressive vessel for her role. If you want a tall ship for "training" (aka a morale piece used to do port visits), get something actually historically relevant or large/impressive. The damn Bluenose is a more impressive vessel than the Oriole but a comparable money pit.

The Dominican Republic has a more impressive sailing ship than Canada does.

 

[Stoker]

I have never understood the reasoning behind keeping Oriole around, she is a very small and incredibly unimpressive vessel for her role. If you want a tall ship for "training" (aka a morale piece used to do port visits), get something actually historically relevant or large/impressive. The damn Bluenose is a more impressive vessel than the Oriole but a comparable money pit.

The Dominican Republic has a more impressive sailing ship than Canada does.

I doubt Oriole will be around more than a few more years. Yes its upkeep is very significant in cost.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I doubt Oriole will be around more than a few more years. Yes its upkeep is very significant in cost.

Good riddance.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

But shipboard fire is a handy way of retaining a nostalgic respect for and attachment to the age of wooden ships.

(Although I would not be surprised to be advised that modern shipboard fires short of getting into the magazine, are worse than plain wood and linen and tar fires.)

There are no good shipboard fires.

Modern ships are better compartmented and less likely suddenly go “boom” than a ship of the line.

OTOH, the smoke is much more toxic.