Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Edward Campbell]

Not much ice in the Gulf of Oman

Rasmussen is ice strengthened.

Probably adds a bit of weight and slows her down a bit.

I'm still thinking 10 years "out," when the current MCDVs have five to 10 years left before they are scrapped and someone has decided that we really do, still, need a small combatant that can perform a wide range of tasks for which the "heavies," while, obviously, fully capable, are too expensive.

Let's say: six to 10 vessels of 1,000 to 1,500 ton displacement, capable of cruising at 20 knots, with a modern 20-30mm gun main gun, stabilized so that it can "fly" UAVs, multi-mission using containerized packages, with a crew of about 30-50 all ranks, and costing no more than $(CA)1.25 Billion in 2013 dollars.

 

[dapaterson]

Given the requirement to buy from Canadian yards and their limited capacity, better to start the planning now - so the MCDV replacements will be only 5-10 years late...

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm still thinking 10 years "out," when the current MCDVs have five to 10 years left before they are scrapped and someone has decided that we really do, still, need a small combatant that can perform a wide range of tasks for which the "heavies," while, obviously, fully capable, are too expensive.

Let's say: six to 10 vessels of 1,000 to 1,500 ton displacement, capable of cruising at 20 knots, with a modern 20-30mm gun main gun, stabilized so that it can "fly" UAVs, multi-mission using containerized packages, with a crew of about 30-50 all ranks, and costing no more than $(CA)1.25 Billion in 2013 dollars.

Seen ERC.

Sorry for short responses - limited to phone comms

 

[AlexanderM]

I'm still thinking 10 years "out," when the current MCDVs have five to 10 years left before they are scrapped and someone has decided that we really do, still, need a small combatant that can perform a wide range of tasks for which the "heavies," while, obviously, fully capable, are too expensive.

Let's say: six to 10 vessels of 1,000 to 1,500 ton displacement, capable of cruising at 20 knots, with a modern 20-30mm gun main gun, stabilized so that it can "fly" UAVs, multi-mission using containerized packages, with a crew of about 30-50 all ranks, and costing no more than $(CA)1.25 Billion in 2013 dollars.

$125 million each should get us something decent, put the ESSM's and the ASW in the containers/modules and we're good to go!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This is 168 tons which is too light, something more like 1000 tons to 1500 tons, as someone else was suggesting would be good.  The Rasmussen is 1700 tons, but a faster hull design would be better.

Here is the USCG other program, one we really don't want to follow judging by  the success rate of their larger vessels (small vessels they do very well)

http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/opc/

 

[AlexanderM]

Here is the USCG other program, one we really don't want to follow judging by  the success rate of their larger vessels (small vessels they do very well)

http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/opc/

I think the way to go is find a current design, one of the new ones, already built, that is proving itself to be a good design, and just go with that.  If there's something out there we can license there isn't any need to re-invent the wheel.

 

[Kirkhill]

Now that I am back at a real key board..... you're all in trouble  >

With respect to a future patrol vessel, I like the idea of a heavier vessel.  By heavier I mean a vessel that has a deep displacement in the same range as the Black Swan and the Hollands, for the reasons I've given before (landing platform size, "inherent" stability).  To those reasons I would add the benefits of a longer waterline yielding more speed and less resistance (more economy), and increased volume which could be translated into more bunkerage (for longer range) or more deadweight payload, or more tonnage.  If you build a vessel that displaces 1500 to 2000 tonnes light displacement but can accomodate an additional 1500 tonnes of deadweight at deep displacement I don't think the cost would be significantly greater than a naval spec vessel of 2000 tonnes displacement with 0 tonnes of deadweight.

Space and steel are relatively cheap.  Just look at the price of the commercial monsters.

 

[Underway]

Now that I am back at a real key board..... you're all in trouble  >

With respect to a future patrol vessel, I like the idea of a heavier vessel.  By heavier I mean a vessel that has a deep displacement in the same range as the Black Swan and the Hollands, for the reasons I've given before (landing platform size, "inherent" stability).  To those reasons I would add the benefits of a longer waterline yielding more speed and less resistance (more economy), and increased volume which could be translated into more bunkerage (for longer range) or more deadweight payload, or more tonnage.  If you build a vessel that displaces 1500 to 2000 tonnes light displacement but can accomodate an additional 1500 tonnes of deadweight at deep displacement I don't think the cost would be significantly greater than a naval spec vessel of 2000 tonnes displacement with 0 tonnes of deadweight.

Space and steel are relatively cheap.  Just look at the price of the commercial monsters.

Space and steel are cheap relatively speaking.  Engines to push the extra weight are not as cheap.  Granted I get where you are going here as weapons and sensors are usually the most expensive part.

 

[AlexanderM]

Now that I am back at a real key board..... you're all in trouble  >

With respect to a future patrol vessel, I like the idea of a heavier vessel.  By heavier I mean a vessel that has a deep displacement in the same range as the Black Swan and the Hollands, for the reasons I've given before (landing platform size, "inherent" stability).  To those reasons I would add the benefits of a longer waterline yielding more speed and less resistance (more economy), and increased volume which could be translated into more bunkerage (for longer range) or more deadweight payload, or more tonnage.  If you build a vessel that displaces 1500 to 2000 tonnes light displacement but can accomodate an additional 1500 tonnes of deadweight at deep displacement I don't think the cost would be significantly greater than a naval spec vessel of 2000 tonnes displacement with 0 tonnes of deadweight.

Space and steel are relatively cheap.  Just look at the price of the commercial monsters.

The Hollands are 3750 tons!!  That's less than 1000 tons smaller than the Halifax class.  Way too big.  Although they are very sexy!!!

 

[Kirkhill]

Why are they too big?

They only demand a complement of 54 which is on par with most of the other OPVs out there, including the Svalbard AOPS which, like the Canadian AOPS vessels are almost two times that displacement at approximately 6000 tonnes.

The vessels being contemplated to replace the Halifaxes, and in all other navies, are pushing 6000 tonnes with complements of 100 to 150, versus vessels with crews of 200 to 250 in hulls displacing 4000 tonnes.

I get Underway's point about the engines but I believe that it is worth the money - especially given multiple generators in a diesel-electric drive.

 

[AlexanderM]

Why are they too big?

They only demand a complement of 54 which is on par with most of the other OPVs out there, including the Svalbard AOPS which, like the Canadian AOPS vessels are almost two times that displacement at approximately 6000 tonnes.

The vessels being contemplated to replace the Halifaxes, and in all other navies, are pushing 6000 tonnes with complements of 100 to 150, versus vessels with crews of 200 to 250 in hulls displacing 4000 tonnes.

I get Underway's point about the engines but I believe that it is worth the money - especially given multiple generators in a diesel-electric drive.

I just don't see the point in building a 3750 ton vessel that's armed with a couple of guns.  Some of the smaller designs are much more better armed.  Also, let Irving get a look at the size of that vessel and we'll be paying through the nose.  A 1000-1500 ton vessel will do very nicely.

 

[Kirkhill]

Crew Displacement
Svalbard OPV 50 6375
AOPS 45 5874
Thor OPV 48 4049
Holland OPV 54 3750
Thetis OPV 47 3500
Black Swan 48 3150
BAM OPV 35 2500
Protector OPV 35 1900
Braunschweig 65 1840
BAE OPV 36 1800
River OPV 28 1700
Baynunnah OPV 37 915

Average 44 3113

The tendency, especially for northern waters, is to build larger OPVs that can stay on station longer with small crews while staying connected to shore by medium helicopters.

About Irving's pricing policies:  completely separate discussion.

 

[AlexanderM]

Never mind, looks like the Germans are having all kinds of problems with the Braunschweig-class corvettes.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think that, if I'm a naval commander, I love my "heavies." When they are supported by an AOR they give me (my country) a global, strategic, power projection capability ... what's not to love?

What's not to love? They cost an arm and a leg: $billions to build, $millions to crew every month; then $tens of thousands to fuel and maintain every day at sea.

So, if I'm a naval commander, much as I love my "heavies" I need a small combatant - which costs $millions, maybe over $100 Million, to build; $tens of thousands to crew for a month; and only $thousands to send for a day at sea. I want something that costs 10% of a "heavy" and gives me 15% of its capability - which is enough for many, many domestic operations.

If I can have 3,000 tons and 25 knots with a crew of 35 for $150 Million and less than $1,000/hour at sea then fine, I'm happy; but my guess, based on what I've read here, is that my desired 10:1 cost ratio means I have to settle for less than 1,500 tons and 20 knots.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think that, if I'm a naval commander, I love my "heavies." When they are supported by an AOR they give me (my country) a global, strategic, power projection capability ... what's not to love?

What's not to love? They cost an arm and a leg: $billions to build, $millions to crew every month; then $tens of thousands to fuel and maintain every day at sea.

So, if I'm a naval commander, much as I love my "heavies" I need a small combatant - which costs $millions, maybe over $100 Million, to build; $tens of thousands to crew for a month; and only $thousands to send for a day at sea. I want something that costs 10% of a "heavy" and gives me 15% of its capability - which is enough for many, many domestic operations.

If I can have 3,000 tons and 25 knots with a crew of 35 for $150 Million and less than $1,000/hour at sea then fine, I'm happy; but my guess, based on what I've read here, is that my desired 10:1 cost ratio means I have to settle for less than 1,500 tons and 20 knots.

I believe that your requirements are not unrealistic.  The difference is dependent on the definition of a "heavy".    When I call for a vessel that displaces 3000 tonnes I don't expect her to have 3000 tonnes of metal permanently bolted to her frame.  I'm calling for a 1500 tonne vessel that can add 1500 tonnes of "cargo".  That "cargo" could be "active cargo" in the form of weapons containers, or it could be smaller vessels, or soldiers and trucks, or it could be fuel, or even ballast.

In addition to the Hollands at about 155 MUSD each, and the 2500 tonne Spanish BAM at 160 MUSD each there are other 3000 tonne class OPVs, notably the Icelandic Thor at 4000 tonnes and the Norwegian Barentshav and Harstads at 3200 tonnes.  Those vessels can operate with crews less than half of your target of 35 and prices published are generally under 100 MUSD each.  The one characteristic that may be harder to achieve, as Underway suggests, is 25 knots.  Engines to supply maximum speeds of 20 knots is generally more common.

In the larger class of ships (frigates proper) the Absolon and the Huitfeld both displace 6500 tonnes at full load.  The Absolon manages a top speed of 24 knots with 2 engines of 8.8 MW each while the Huitfeldt, which carries an additional 2 engines (total of 4x 8.8 MW) can only increase her top speed by an additional 4 knots.    Meanwhile Absolon, has 2000 tonnes of disposable displacement for the mix of cargoes I listed above.

The issue is not the size of the vessel so much as it his the electronic gizmos you pack into her.  If you can manage the risk by controlling deployments and threat environments then not all the vessels need all the weapons and sensors all the time.  Many low risk deployments (Our EEZ, the Caribbean, the Med, the North Atlantic currently - perhaps even the Horn of Africa) don't need all the gear that, say, a South China Seas deployment might need in 5 or 10 years.  If the threat level increases generally then some of that cargo capacity can be sacrificed for more weapons, sensors and unmanned vehicles.

 

[AlexanderM]

The Spanish Bam design looks very nice, 2500 tonnes, lots of room for mission containers, helicopter with hanger, 20 knots, 8700 mile range.  With the ESSM's and ASW kit in the containers and that range, it becomes a vessel that can be deployed, not just for home waters, although a bit more speed would be nice.  If the hull and engines were tweaked for more speed, one could almost build a couple less heavies and more of these, which would increase the budget. 

I didn't see room for mission containers on the Holland, did I miss it?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You can only "tweak" the hull design so much, which really means in almost all cases lengthening it. The effects of hull design are well known and can be fairly easily computer modeled. The problem is that once you reach the hulls maximum speed, any knot beyond that requires a significant increase in power and fuel consumption. You can "cheat" by using non-conventional designs like SWATH. Again nothing comes for free in ship design.

 

[AlexanderM]

You can only "tweak" the hull design so much, which really means in almost all cases lengthening it. The effects of hull design are well known and can be fairly easily computer modeled. The problem is that once you reach the hulls maximum speed, any knot beyond that requires a significant increase in power and fuel consumption. You can "cheat" by using non-conventional designs like SWATH. Again nothing comes for free in ship design.

OK so it could at least be looked at to see what might be done, if one was serious about the design.  If 20 knots was it, I'd say use it for home waters, still a good looking design.  However, if one could find a way to get the spedd up to 26 or 28 knots, then it could be deployed meaning less heavies, even go down to 12.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Spanish Bam design looks very nice, 2500 tonnes, lots of room for mission containers, helicopter with hanger, 20 knots, 8700 mile range.  With the ESSM's and ASW kit in the containers and that range, it becomes a vessel that can be deployed, not just for home waters, although a bit more speed would be nice.  If the hull and engines were tweaked for more speed, one could almost build a couple less heavies and more of these, which would increase the budget. 

I didn't see room for mission containers on the Holland, did I miss it?

No. You didn't miss it.  But given that Damen has that capability in the Holland's smaller sisters (1800 to 2600),  I don't think it would be much of a "stretch" to add the capability.  On the other hand, perhaps the 2600 is all the ship we need as an MCDV replacement.  Or even this Fassmer OPV 2020.  Both those vessels get ERC up towards his 25 knot requirement and keep me happy with a big enough flight deck and flexible mission spaces.

 

[AlexanderM]

Or even this Fassmer OPV 2020.  Both those vessels get ERC up towards his 25 knot requirement and keep me happy with a big enough flight deck and flexible mission spaces.

Kirkhill, this is the sexiest design yet!  Sold!  We'll take at least 10, of the 25 knot model.