Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Czech_pivo]

Not at all. Mistral is an LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock), whereas CSC is like a destroyer.

Sorry I might not have been clear, in terms of crew, total crew needs, how close are the numbers

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I read years ago, that the base crew was 240, I see wiki gives it as 20 officers, 80 petty officers, 60 quarter-masters. I suspect that's just to keep the ship running, no aviation or hospital.

They are also offering a smaller version as well AAD2014: DCNS markets the Mistral 140 in Africa - Shephard Media

 

[daftandbarmy]

yes that as well, but the Argies are much less of a threat now.

Um, kinda....

Falklands are OURS! Argentina renews threat to tear islands away from UK – angry warning​

ARGENTINE President Alberto Fernández has renewed threats to tear the Falkland Islands away from the UK during a major speech.​

​

Falklands: Former Argentine senator calls for fresh talks with UK​

Speaking at the 76th United Nations General Assembly, Mr Fernández claimed sovereignty over the Falklands, known in Argentina as Malvinas, as well as other islands in the Souh Atlantic. The 62-year-old claimed the British overseas territory was “illegally occupied by the UK” and hit out at the lack of talks between the two nations.


In a virtual address on Tuesday, he renewed Argentina's claim for "legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty rights over the Malvinas, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime spaces that make up part of the Argentine national territory."

Mr Fernández added: “These territories have been illegally occupied by the UK for more than 188 years.


“There is no reason other than the intention of the UK to maintain the illegitimate colonial situation so that the bilateral dialogue is not resumed right now on the Malvinas issue.”

Falklands are OURS! Argentina renews threat over islands

ARGENTINE President Alberto Fernández has renewed threats to tear the Falkland Islands away from the UK during a major speech.

www.express.co.uk

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Hmm government must be in trouble again....

List of active Argentine Navy ships - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Argentine Air Force - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Underway]

Without worrying, for even a μsecond, about what they are called, OPV or corvette or something else, it seems to me that Canada needs a mixed fleet:

• Ideally some (say two or three) amphibious ships ~ helicopter carriers ~ which can bye the centre of a true power projection capability. No service can project power as well as the Navy does and a joint (amphibious) force is, I think, the epitome of power projection;
• Ships to escort those "high value" amphibious ships ~ that likely means at least eight to twelve combatant ships and a couple of oilers; and
• Aircraft to fly long range patrol/ASW and CAP over that force .

I suspect that the amphibious ships are just some commodore's or commander's wet dream but the major surface combatants ~ reported to be weighing in at more than 7,500 tons (when Canada last had a "cruiser" she displaced less than 9,000 tons) ~ are real but will we have more than six to eight of them? It seems to me that the largish Type 26 "frigate" should be augmented by some smaller, more economical, but still capable ships: maybe a dozen or so vessels displaying less than 3,500 tons ~ built and armed to full military standards and carrying organic, multi-role shipborne UAVs. In addition I believe Canadians should have a force of dedicated, purpose built, mine warfare vessels which can be double hatted a training ships. Finally, we need submarines ~ in my opinion under-ice-capable submarines.

First, @Edward Campbell it's great when you come out of lurker mode and post. I always look forward to your thoughts!

The real reason Canada doesn't have an amphib capability... the army doesn't want one. It's that simple. They are super agnostic about how they get to theatre. They don't care because they've always gotten where they needed to go. No one in the army is pushing for navy procurement to get them where they need to go, unlike the C17 procurement for example.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I know more than a few former HTs and ELs that left specifically because of the restructuring, and others that are on their way out for the same reason. Actually, can think of a few former ERs that left as well. Bad news for the navy, but handy for the public service and ISSCs.

The actual plan the RCN choose was the bullcrap throwaway COA, but now that folks that made the decision are gone we can finally relook at the disaster. The idea was bad (and the RN specifically told us not to do that because they did and it didn't work), but politics and saving face were a lot of it. It would have needed a tranformation of the training system to support, and we're still trying to define the martech training requirements 6 years later (with only a small portion done).

We (the RCAF) also tried to warn you. We amalgamated the 500 series trades in the early 2000s…and de-amalgamated 5 years later because it did not work.

 

[Navy_Pete]

We (the RCAF) also tried to warn you. We amalgamated the 500 series trades in the early 2000s…and de-amalgamated 5 years later because it did not work.

And so did the RAN, RNZN, ourselves, ourselves again....

This whole is pretty crazy, going to eventually make a pretty brutal writeup by a future Granastein on how crappy of an idea this was, and how many people knew it was a terrible idea, and how we did it anyway..

 

[Colin Parkinson]

First, @Edward Campbell it's great when you come out of lurker mode and post. I always look forward to your thoughts!

The real reason Canada doesn't have an amphib capability... the army doesn't want one. It's that simple. They are super agnostic about how they get to theatre. They don't care because they've always gotten where they needed to go. No one in the army is pushing for navy procurement to get them where they need to go, unlike the C17 procurement for example.

Their tune might have changed if that RO/RO had turned around and docked in Pakistan or similar, selling off the equipment to cover the costs.

 

[suffolkowner]

Um, kinda....

Mr Fernández added: “These territories have been illegally occupied by the UK for more than 188 years.

Ha! Argentina can't even be 188 yrs old! Always brings me back to those days being glued to the television as we* took back the Falklands. Almost made us like Thatcher too.

*My family is/was very British as my wife was born there and pretty much half of every generation going backwards. It took a long time for us to fly the new flag

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Interesting way to do on the hip moves

 

[dimsum]

And so did the RAN, RNZN, ourselves, ourselves again....

This whole is pretty crazy, going to eventually make a pretty brutal writeup by a future Granastein on how crappy of an idea this was, and how many people knew it was a terrible idea, and how we did it anyway..

Sunk Cost Fallacy is a helluva thing.

 

[Maxman1]

b) for mine clearance, anti-drug ops. and training, ... better a 1,500-2,500 tonnes OPV, crew of a few dozens (thirty-six to sixty?) as earlier discussed (few months ago) in this thread.

I would be over the moon if a ship with the capabilities of the River Class (Type 2) were something we decided upon. Decent seakeeping, good range, 25knots, flight deck for equipment/helo ops, 25-30mm, room for passengers, 16-ton crane.

The design that saw for the replacement took the original requirements for the Kingston class and made a few changes, one was a top speed of 25 knots and it does have a gun.

Again, sounds like the Braunschweig fits the bill.
1,800 tonnes
Top speed 26 knots
Range of 4,000 nautical miles
Crew of 65
Oto Melara 76mm main gun
4 RBS-15 anti-ship missiles and two Mauser BK-27 cannons and two RIM-116
Flight deck large enough for Sea Kings and hangar large enough for two Gargoyle UAVs, but the Israeli Sa'ar 6 increased the hangar to accommodate an MH-60 Seahawk

Just replace the RBS-15s with Harpoons, the BK-27s with Bushmaster M242/Mk 38s, add some M2s and Mk 32 torpedo launchers and expand the hangar to accommodate a Cyclone (the Israeli version also has VLS cells, which would probably be unnecessary on an OPV).

 

[Good2Golf]

Yes the cards were all replaced with PLC's (Programmable Logic Controller's), digital directional control valves and other updates. Some teething issues on software but the days of the dreaded "crazy Ivan " are over.

…so it’s true that MCDVs always swerved to port in the bottom of the hour?

 

[Underway]

Again, sounds like the Braunschweig fits the bill.
1,800 tonnes
Top speed 26 knots
Range of 4,000 nautical miles
Crew of 65
Oto Melara 76mm main gun
4 RBS-15 anti-ship missiles and two Mauser BK-27 cannons and two RIM-116
Flight deck large enough for Sea Kings and hangar large enough for two Gargoyle UAVs, but the Israeli Sa'ar 6 increased the hangar to accommodate an MH-60 Seahawk

Just replace the RBS-15s with Harpoons, the BK-27s with Bushmaster M242/Mk 38s, add some M2s and Mk 32 torpedo launchers and expand the hangar to accommodate a Cyclone (the Israeli version also has VLS cells, which would probably be unnecessary on an OPV).

Braunschweig class hull and engines would fit the bill. It would need to be stripped down for Canada's needs.

No need for 76mm. Too heavy of a gun to deal with Op Caribbe type operations, and EEZ patrolling.
Definitely no need for missiles of any type. Expense with no advantage in our case. An OPV won't have the sensors to locate a target for ASM in the North Pacific or Atlantic and would need to rely upon other assets. Those same other assets could just take the shot themselves.
Crew a bit high, numbers closer to 40 might be better.

Given those changes likely the range could be increased as the weight comes down and the crew comes down (no need to operate/maintain all those combat systems).

The Braunschweig class was designed for operations in the North Sea and Baltic, which means it doesn't need legs and needs to be heavily armed for its size to deal with the Baltic threats. War in the Baltic is a knife fight in a phone booth in naval terms. With Sweden and Russia stabbing swords at each other through it.

Of course, all of this is assuming a certain "non-combatant" status for an MCDV replacement. Keep them cheap, good seakeeping, and relatively fast and I bet it's a winner.

 

[GR66]

Braunschweig class hull and engines would fit the bill. It would need to be stripped down for Canada's needs.

No need for 76mm. Too heavy of a gun to deal with Op Caribbe type operations, and EEZ patrolling.
Definitely no need for missiles of any type. Expense with no advantage in our case. An OPV won't have the sensors to locate a target for ASM in the North Pacific or Atlantic and would need to rely upon other assets. Those same other assets could just take the shot themselves.
Crew a bit high, numbers closer to 40 might be better.

Given those changes likely the range could be increased as the weight comes down and the crew comes down (no need to operate/maintain all those combat systems).

The Braunschweig class was designed for operations in the North Sea and Baltic, which means it doesn't need legs and needs to be heavily armed for its size to deal with the Baltic threats. War in the Baltic is a knife fight in a phone booth in naval terms. With Sweden and Russia stabbing swords at each other through it.

Of course, all of this is assuming a certain "non-combatant" status for an MCDV replacement. Keep them cheap, good seakeeping, and relatively fast and I bet it's a winner.

As we're re-entering a period of great power competition with Russia and China both boosting their naval capabilities why would we want to double down on non-combatant ships to replace the MCDVs?

 

[Underway]

As we're re-entering a period of great power competition with Russia and China both boosting their naval capabilities why would we want to double down on non-combatant ships to replace the MCDVs?

Because small combatants in non-literal environments have extremely low survival chances when the shooting starts. A Braunschweig class survives at the pleasure of the allied airforce or its ability to hide in the many fjords and islands of Norway and Sweden.

Australia and the UK get it. Big frigates for warfighting, OPV's for EEZ and "policing" type Ops.

However, I can see a minor ASW role for an MCDV replacement, or counter mine warfare. Or even a UXV carrier which could have lots of specialized jobs that might be critical for operations.

Also, CSC is going to eat the budget for combatants. Something needs to be cheap and easy to operate to do all those other dirty jobs.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I also wonder about numbers. If we were to go "all out" on the MCDV replacement and give it missiles, torpedoes etc, how many could there be built? I doubt that even if it were armed similarly to an AOPS, we'd get a one for one replacement, let alone armed like a frigate. Given its perceived role, I'd rather have 10 or so adequately equipped vessels that can be used frequently than 4-5 heavily armed units that have to be scheduled very carefully in their taskings.

 

[Underway]

I would not be surprised if an MCDV replacement was 6-8 ships. AOPS are a thing and will be tasked with some current MCDV jobs and eating up crew from the MCDV fleet. 8 ships is probably a good number. 6 is the minimum.

 

[GR66]

Because small combatants in non-literal environments have extremely low survival chances when the shooting starts. A Braunschweig class survives at the pleasure of the allied airforce or its ability to hide in the many fjords and islands of Norway and Sweden.

Australia and the UK get it. Big frigates for warfighting, OPV's for EEZ and "policing" type Ops.

However, I can see a minor ASW role for an MCDV replacement, or counter mine warfare. Or even a UXV carrier which could have lots of specialized jobs that might be critical for operations.

Also, CSC is going to eat the budget for combatants. Something needs to be cheap and easy to operate to do all those other dirty jobs.

In my initial comment on my preference for a replacement was:

"Personally I'd be in favour of an ASW Corvette to complement the CSCs. Ideally with the facilities to at least land and rearm/refuel the Cyclone (I don't have any real hope that we'll expand our MH fleet enough to actually have an air detachment on them) plus their own UAVs. Anti-surface missiles plus AD missiles for both self-defence and that can be directed by our CSC's for area defence."

Specifically ASW because:

1) In a major conflict with Russia a major deciding factor will likely be the ability of the US to deliver its heavy military forces to Europe by sea. Russia would use its substantial submarine fleet to try and interfere so a robust ASW capability would be a significant contribution. With the size of the ocean numbers matter so 12 x CSCs won't be enough.

2) In a war with China the US will likely try to keep its carriers out of range of Chinese area denial weapons while it uses its aviation to weaken their surface fleet and air power. China will likely try to use their subs to try and take out the carriers, so again ASW assets will be in great demand.

3) In defence of Canada it is unlikely that any enemy surface fleet will approach our coastline due to the strong US naval and air forces so any likely attacks from the sea will be from subs. Again the need for plentiful ASW assets.

While I don't see putting these Corvettes up against enemy surface fleets you can't assume that they won't face enemy attack so as I said, they should have self defence missile capabilities (and having extra missiles on dispersed launchers that can be controlled by a CSC would give a task force greater survivability).

My dream configuration would be a Mistral-type flagship with Cyclones heading an ASW task force of 3-4 ASW Corvettes and 1-2 CSCs to provide area air defence. One can dream can't they???

 

[Stoker]

I would not be surprised if an MCDV replacement was 6-8 ships. AOPS are a thing and will be tasked with some current MCDV jobs and eating up crew from the MCDV fleet. 8 ships is probably a good number. 6 is the minimum.

Like the Kingston Class we need an all around pickup truck that's thrifty on fuel and maintenance, nothing too fancy. At 2% fuel a day, AOPS is not that economical. 25mm gun, 50 cals, a full size Rhib, ability to operate drones, take payloads ,25 knot speed with a min ice capability. Probably 35 to 40 crew with 10 training bunks for force generation.