Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Underway]

I wouldn't want a Freedom LCS if my life depended on it: The engineering side for propulsion is a nightmare, and a good part of the reason the USN itself doesn't want them anymore. If the USN is not capable of maintaining and operating that power plant with its resources, what does it tell you about our capability to do so?

P.S. Just a little tidbit here, and a question that goes with it: Someone mentioned CFAV vs FFS operation of Asterix (which could easily be done if we bought her straight up as permissible under the contract), but I note that she seems to be flying the Canadian Blue Ensign of the CFAV already. Anybody knows why?

Style. No one told them not too or cares enough.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Would be significantly more cost effective to buy or lease a civilian OSV with a proper deck crane and dynamic positioning for a task like this.

The MCDVs aren't in bad shape in some ways, but are certainly showing their age.

We have some precedent for the idea. Oil rig supply ships were converted by the RCN about 30 years ago.

HMCS Anticosti (MSA 110) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[GR66]

French, UK naval chiefs urge dramatic changes in warship design

“If you stay with your old doctrine, you will be dead very rapidly,” said French Navy Chief of Staff Adm. Nicolas Vaujour.

www.defensenews.com

This is what I'm getting at in the MCDV replacement program (and what SHOULD have been done with the AOPS in my opinion)...weapons/sensors/etc. are changing much faster that the platforms themselves can be built so a great deal of flexibility has to be built into the designs.

Some interesting comments from the article:

Navies can no longer count on ships staying relevant over their 40-year lifespan, and weapon systems will change “dramatically” over such a period, French Navy Chief of Staff Adm. Nicolas Vaujour said at the Euronaval industry conference outside Paris on Monday. Weapon systems may need to be adapted as frequently as every year, requiring ship architecture that allows for systems to be plugged in and changed when needed, Vaujour said.

Generational technology change is happening much faster than the time it takes to construct a ship, meaning navies need to implement new capabilities “far quicker than the speed at which we can build a hull,” according to Adm. Sir Ben Key, First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff of the U.K.’s Royal Navy.“So you have to detach the operational capability from the platform that’s going to take you there,” Key said. “That is quite a mindset change for us.”

“If you stay with your old doctrine, you will be dead very rapidly,” Vaujour said. “What we saw in the Red Sea is that we have to adapt very quickly our system.”

And an interesting take-away from the French regarding the recent trends to decrease crew sizes in favour of automation:

For the French, one lesson from the Red Sea was that facing a constant threat is “really hard” on crews, and the navy probably needs more people on board, according to Vaujour. “We make the bets to reduce the crew, and I came back from that.”

I'm sure there are a lot of people on here that will be saying "I told you so!"

In general, the take-away I get from the article (and what I've been suggesting) is that the old thought pattern of designing ships for specific roles (i.e. this is an ASW platform, this is an AD platform, this one is a mine clearance platform, and this one is a non-combatant patrol platform) prevents you from having the capability to quickly adapt to changing threats. We need to build flexibility right into the platform designs so that we don't get stuck with "you can't do that because that's not what that ship was designed to do" when a need arises. Especially for Canada where our fleet is so small.

And yes I understand that with "flexibility" vs specialization you will potentially pay a cost in capability, but the UK's First Sea Lord seems to accept that fact as well:

The lesson was that forces need to be “much sharper” about focusing on the factors that really matter, rather than seeking a perfect solution that will be late, according to the British admiral. That will be a challenge, “because we’ve been brought up in the pursuit of perfection, and actually, we haven’t got time for that,” Key said.

 

[Kirkhill]

I wouldn't want a Freedom LCS if my life depended on it: The engineering side for propulsion is a nightmare, and a good part of the reason the USN itself doesn't want them anymore. If the USN is not capable of maintaining and operating that power plant with its resources, what does it tell you about our capability to do so?

P.S. Just a little tidbit here, and a question that goes with it: Someone mentioned CFAV vs FFS operation of Asterix (which could easily be done if we bought her straight up as permissible under the contract), but I note that she seems to be flying the Canadian Blue Ensign of the CFAV already. Anybody knows why?

How do you feel about the Austal ships? The Independence class and what I consider to be the sister Spearhead JHSV class?



The Spearheads in particular seem to be still in good odour (and order). They seem to have an ongoing future both as autonomous platforms and as Fast Medical Ships for the Yanks

Expeditionary Autonomous Transports

Austal USA is activating systems and working on final outfitting of the Navy’s newest expeditionary fast transport, the Cody (EPF-14).

www.usni.org

Austal USA Wins U.S. Navy Contract for Expeditionary Medical Ship - Naval News

Austal USA received a contract award for final design and construction of three Expeditionary Medical Ships (EMS) from the U.S. Navy today.

www.navalnews.com

As I understand the current concept the JSHVs will act as utility vessels to support the Independence types with logistics, MRTs and ambulances. Effectively running the flotillas like independent company groups. They share mechanicals. And the designs are quite capable of sustaining additional bolt-on loads like the Kongsberg NSM launchers recently added to the foredecks of the LCS.

...

This is what the Aussie Large Optionally-crewed Surface Vessels might look like. Essentially a modified OSV with a 32 cell VLS system permanently mounted amidship and upper and lower flex decks back aft.

Australia Plans to Buy Unmanned Warships

The Australian government has announced a plan to expand the size of the Royal Australian Navy, and a healthy share of the boost will be in the form o...

maritime-executive.com