By David Dunlop, 3 July 2023
The 12 Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (Kingston-class) were built between 1993-1998 and have been in commission with the RCN since 1996. The multi-purpose nature of the MCDVs led to their mixed construction between both commercial and naval standards. The class is split equally between the east and west coasts of Canada and regularly deploy overseas to West Africa, Europe, Central America and the Caribbean.
In May 1992, a $650 million CAD contract was awarded to Halifax Shipyards of Halifax, Nova Scotia to construct 12 ships of the class. The main mission of these vessels was to train both regular and reserve sailors in coastal patrol, minesweeping, anti-piracy and anti-drug operations, law enforcement, pollution surveillance and search and rescue duties. Steel cutting for the first ship began in December 1993 and by July 1999, all 12 Kingston-class ships were in service. The ships are evenly distributed between the East and West Coasts with one vessel on each coast maintained for rapid deployment. The crews are a mix of reservists for training with a permanent regular force RCN personnel for basic crew. The class deploy regularly as part of Operation Caribbe in the Caribbean Sea and the Central American Pacific coast. The ships also deploy to the Arctic as part of Operation Nanook, and in naval operations off the west coast of Africa and in the Baltic Sea among others.
There were several criteria for the design. The ships had to be built in Canada, they had to be inexpensive to build, the design had to have role flexibility included, and they had to be inexpensive to operate. The design originally called for steel-hulled mine countermeasures vessels and training ships. They were built to commercial standards to reduce costs with the exception of stability, maneuverability and the magazines which were constructed to naval standards. Their mixed construction is visible with their two square, separated funnels which were cheaper to manufacture, however they have poor seakeeping and a large radar signature.
They have a standard displacement of 772 tonnes (760 long tons) light and 979 t (964 long tons) fully loaded. During sea trials, the vessels were found to be too top heavy with a further 8.9 long tons of permanent ballast added. The ships measure 55.31 metres (181 ft 6 in) long overall and 49 m (160 ft 9 in) between perpendiculars with a beam of 11.3 m (37 ft 1 in) and a draught of 3.42 m (11 ft 3 in). The class has a maximum crew of 47, with crew sizes changing depending on the vessel’s tasks. The ships are equipped with an electric drive system that is powered by four Wärtsilä UD 23V12 diesel engines coupled to four Jeumont ANR 53-50-4 alternators, creating 715 kilowatts each. Two Jeumont C1 560 L electric motors provide power to the two LIPS FS-100 Z-drive azimuth thrusters which are fitted with fixed-pitch reversing propellers. In total the system creates 3,064 shaft horsepower (2,285 kW) and a maximum speed of 15 knots. When minesweeping, the vessels have a maximum speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) and have a range of 5,000 nautical miles at 8 knots and have an endurance of 18 days.
The Kingston class were initially armed with a single Bofors 40-millimetre (1.6 in)/60 calibre Mk 1N/1 anti-aircraft gun mounted in a Mk 5C Boffin mount and two single 12.7 mm (0.50 in) Browning M2 machine guns. The Bofors guns were refurbished World War II models that had been previously used by the Canadian Army for air defence in Europe and were removed in 2014. The machine guns are mounted on either side at the front of the bridge deck. All 12 ships have degaussing coil arrays fitted, but only the first three ships have the control system, with it situated between the two funnels.
Moving forward with Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) replacements
The most recent defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) produced in 2017, did not mention the MCDVs or replacement time frames. The civilian designed class is creeping up to 30 years old now and must be replaced with more capable navalized OPVs soonest. There are several OPVs either operational or on the drawing board world-wide, that could be excellent options for the RCN. These include:
- VARD 7 115 Next Generation Off-Shore Patrol Vessel (NGOPV)
- VARD 7 125 Next Generation Off-Shore Patrol Vessel (NGOPV)
- Fincantieri-Italy-Vigilance class OPV (also from VARD)
- SERCO Canada’s ATLAS 120 Frigate OPV
- SERCO Canada’s ATLAS 105 Corvette OPV
- BAE 95-Meter Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV)
- CMN France Vigilante CL 75 MK II or 1400-CL 79 OPVs
These are just a few options that Canada could decide on for replacements of the Kingston-class MCDVs. Or Canada could acquire other options or design its own OPV replacement – this, however would certainly be the least desirable option in terms of cost.
29 thoughts on “Maritime Coastal Defence Vessel (MCDVs) Replacements”
There is a few things to consider that will better inform people to what the Kingston replacement might eventually be.
The ships were built with a lifespan of 25 years, which all ships in the class have already exceeded or will soon exceed. The American Bureau of Shipping surveyed the material condition of the class and found that they still had another 10-15 years of service remaining. With proper maintenance and upkeep, the class is viable for quite sometime going forward.
I think a replacement program is important but it isn’t something that the RCN needs to immediately go full steam ahead now. It is important to consider that the RCN is juggling a lot of major procurements now and through the immediate future. AOPS, JSS, CSC and a submarine replacement. There is only so much political, financial and personnel capital to divide up between all of these programs, even before you start on a Kingston replacement in earnest.
With that being said, I have heard that the RCN is testing the waters for a potential Kingston replacement already. Speaking to Kingston crews, gathering feedback and showing off some very early artist sketches. There is no official program ongoing now, this is just hearsay so take it with a grain of salt. Any replacement is likely a few years off from starting due to the life remaining in the hulls. General project goals are seemingly as follows:
1.) Higher top speed into the 25 knot~ range.
2.) Larger hull and operational range more suited to oceanic and overseas duties, retaining some light ice strengthening for Northern duties.
3.) No major armament, likely will consist of a single main gun between 25mm – 40mm alongside some various machine guns.
4.) Capable of operating alongside Allied vessels in mine warfare missions.
5.) Capable of carrying and handling various types of aerial and aquatic drones alongside a more comprehensive suite of RHIB’s and fast boats. Manned Helicopters and hangers are not a sure thing and likely won’t be included.
The RCN needs to decide what the primary role of this vessel will be, as that will dictate many of the design choices. Mine warfare and OPV roles can be done on one design however, a single dedicated design for either of those roles will be more effective capability wise. That might mean a split class of two designs, Canada might specialize in one of those roles over the other or we will adopt a ‘jack of all trades’ middle ground. I believe the RCN will again go for a single design that can do both roles to be more cost effective and simple. The limitations of the Kingston class partially came from designing a ship for one role half heartedly and sticking it into another role later.
The most important aspect of the Kingston replacement will be cost and ease of operation, this fact should not be lost for a moment along the way. The Kingston class is a limited design in what capabilities it brings however, it is unrivaled within the Navy for its low operational costs (compared to a frigate or AOPS) and low crewing requirement. THIS is the capability we need to replace. As this program will be ongoing alongside many other higher profile, high cost RCN procurements, it needs to fairly cost effective and MUST avoid mission creep. We do not need a corvette, we do not need a frigate, we do not need a gunboat, we do not need a missile boat. We do not need a second class of combatants, we need a replacement for the Kingston class. The larger the ship gets, the more its role is expanded, the more systems, weapons and sensors are put aboard, the more crew it requires, the more complex the design is and the more expensive it gets.
There is many foreign designs that we could decide on, the market is flooded with various OPV’s. We could just as easily design one of our own from scratch to fit exactly what we want, this type of vessel is relatively simple in the grand scheme of things. Whatever Canada eventually decides, it will be paramount that we choose a design which is cost effective to both procure and operate while filling the roles we need.
It appears that the OP just cut and pasted a bunch of information they found on the internet as some of the info is outdated.
Hi, Jimmy agree with much of what you said. ABS surveyed the class a few years ago to bring the ships into class. KIN was the first ship to have its structural certificate extended from 25 to 30 years as most ships are expected to have at least a 5 year extension. They can also be extended 10 more years — however it’s a matter of funding as the maintenance money for the KIN class now comes from the same pot of money as the Halifax Class as the KIN Class was only funded up until 25 years. The good news is that the Kingstons are overall in pretty good shape and that’s due to the outside contractor type of maintenance model it uses. We are starting to see some structure replaced in refits as the civilian type of construction makes it relatively easy to do that and the refits, while comprehensive, are pennies compared to other class’s. Many systems are upgraded in these refits and many more planned.
I recently saw concept art for the replacement of the class and some general requirements for the replacement. No official standup of a replacement project and I suspect there won’t be for some years as the imperative is the replacement of other classes. The recent talk of a replacement is simply shipbuilders drumming up business with unsolicited designs, nice to see though and it keeps everyone aware. Some of the requirements I have seen officially and some that I would like to see any replacement have are:
1. Longer hull to facilitate more efficient and greater storage of consumables and accommodate more bunks.
2. Speed up to 25 knots
3. Ice strengthened
4. Small caliber gun up to 40mm and .50 Cals
5. Better capacity crane
6. Two full sized Rhibs
7. Easy to maintain and upgrade ships systems
8. Good range and fuel economy
9. System redundancy to allow return home capability
10. AAV capability
11. Capability to operate towed payloads
12. Multibeam echo sounder capability
13. Capability to operate with up to 6 20ft seacans full powered and mission configurable ISO locks.
14. Link capability
15. CMS 330
16. X and S band radars
17. IR surveillance capability
18. Degaussing
19. CBRN Capability
20. Dynamic positioning.
21. Crew compliment of up to 48 with 10 spare training bunks.
This is obviously not an exhaustive list, however the ships must be relatively cheap to construct, operate and the ability to change mission payloads so quickly which is why the Kingston Class was so successful over the years. Just last week HMCS Glace Bay was mission configured in the middle of the night with a recompression chamber and dive medical support payload to aid in the search for the Titanic missing tourist sub. You are correct that there is simply no need for missile systems or anything else like that as there is simply no requirement and makes the ships too expensive and hard to procure. We need something more simple and if this means two classes of ships or a jack of all trades then so be it.
Hello Ted. Agree with a lot of what you have said however, if you are going to operate towed payloads (I suspect for MCM) why not give the OPV a sonar Towed Array System (an HMS would also be of some use)? To have room for at least 6 x 20 ft containers, why not have some sort of Multi-Mission Bay (MMB) with a Mission Handling System (MHS) and also have the RHIBs enclosed? When you are talking Tactical Data Links (TDLs), Link 11, Link 16 (MIDS) and Link 22 (HF) would be a minimum capability along with a GCCS-M capability. If you are also going to require this OPV to “talk with other naval ships & manned or unmanned A/C” the CMS 330 System would be a necessary capability which means you need a dedicated CIC (Ops Room). This OPV must also have the basic capability to defend itself so I would think light-weight torpedoes would be a must along with a CIAD System like Sea-Ram as well. The S band radar should be large enough to give the ship some early air warning and surface search of incoming threats (the French Sea Fire 500 AESA radar would be a great option) for any future Canadian OPV. I strongly disagree with you that there is no need for this class of OPV to defend itself. It needs, at least as a minimum, basic air, surface & sub-surface capabilities to ensure its survival or it will be a sitting duck if by itself. Your crew compliment also seems to be a little bit low (possibly around 60-65 personnel along with extra bunk space for “other” personnel. Whoever the Ready Duty Ship (RDS) was, at the time of the Titan missing sub incident could just as well have been tasked to bring the recompression chamber and dive medical support payload to aid in the search. It just happened to be HMCS Glace Bay which was already at sea at the time. That’s what the RDS concept is for. Would these OPVs be too expensive? Probably, but what price do you put on the future sailors who will sail on these OPVs? Yes, I still contend that an OPV with a Mine Warfare & MCM primary capability along with a basic Air, Surface & Sub-surface capability with all the other missions it will be required to do by the government is the right thing to do. A jack-of-all-trades vessel would be the prudent way to go. The final “take-away” costs for this 12 ship OPV fleet (6 per coast) to be built may probably come in at over 1-1.5B CAD at least. The price of doing business. Cheers!
They already have a ASW payload called TRAPS, which the Kingston Class and AOPS have already operated. You are calling this an OPV — it’s not. It is a replacement for the Kingston Class with a bit more capability, that’s it. The more bells and whistles you give it such as missiles and fire control radars and such increases the price, crewing, maintenance, etc., it doesn’t need it. Kingston concept of ops doesn’t require these systems whatsoever. GLA wasn’t the RDS at the time, but it was a simple platform, with simple systems that got the job done efficiently. Enough with this talk about a price being put on sailors’ lives, it’s not an OPV or armed corvette. The ship will be operating with NATO MCM group 1 and they don’t operate ships of that size and capability because it doesn’t require it.
Hello Ted. I will give you that TRAPS (Towed Reelable Active Passive Sonar) system seems to be an up-and-coming “cost effective” TAS system but has not yet been officially purchased by any country including Canada. Yes, trials have been done on both the Kingston & Harry De Wolfe classes with varying degrees of success but nothing written in concrete as of yet. There have also been expressions of interest from certain Asian countries and Elbit has an agreement from the Israeli government for TRAP-USV on their USVs but noting has been trialed as yet on their USVs. An interesting “piece of kit” though that has promise. By the way, the US government also has a TRAPS program called Transformational Reliable Acoustic Path System from a company called Leidos, which is a fixed passive sonar node that allows for much larger area surveillance to detect submarines at much longer distances than what the Canadian TRAP system can do.
Is the Kingston class an OPV? You bet it is. The VARD Vigilance Class is certainly somewhat larger than the MCDV class with the ability to accomplish both Mine Warfare & MCM along with whatever capabilities Canada decides to have on this or any other future OPV Canada and the RCN decide what is, and is not required for this future replacement of our MCDVs including “some sort” of ASW/AAW and perhaps an ASuW capability. I will give you a 40mm gun forward however if that is going to be the gun a future Canadian OPV “needs”, then let it be the Bofors 40mm Mk 4 as a good option. These “bells and whistles’ as you say that are not required will eventually sink every one of any future OPVs we want to replace the Kingston class with if not defended properly. CONOPS are just that “Concepts of Operations” that can and will probably change with the OPV replacements for the Kingston class. If you are not going to at least give the replacement OPV the ability to defend itself from the air, surface or sub-surface, then why replace the MCDVs at all. Just let them whither and die on the vine (along with the sailors who have to work on them). These future OPVs will be integrated within larger Canadian Task Groups along with operating with NATO MCM Group 1. Both Belgium and the Netherlands are jointly developing a 12 ship “City class” Mine Hunter/MCM OPVs for their MCM replacements, along with France as well. Their new “City class” is a very unique design with UAVs, USVs and UUV capabilities that may also be a good fit for Kingston class replacements. Sweden is “kicking the tires” on the Saab MCM V 80 OPV as their Mine hunter/sweeper replacement as well. When, and if, Canada decides to replace its MCDVs, let’s all hope it is the “right” decision for Canada and not let politics get in the way…..again. Have A Great Navy Day!
Hi David,
If we had such a capable ship as you suggest, which I would call a corvette to differentiate it from minimally armed OPVs, we would need a separate class of very cheap and simple ships (like the Porte-class “pig boats”) for naval reserve training. Perhaps something based on modern fishing trawlers but with a minimal (50 cal HMG) armament and also useful as a coastal patrol vessel.
Ubique.
Les
Hi Les, If you take a closer look at the Belgium/Netherland/French “City Class” MCM OPVs you will find it is a very unique design with UAVs, USVs and UUV as its main capabilities, that may also be a good fit for Kingston class replacements. We may not need to build 12 of these OPVs for the RCN. Perhaps 4-5 per coast up to a fleet of no more than 10 vessels. The only problem with this design is their speed that “some” have suggested would have to be, at a minimum, of 25+ kts. Very forward lookiing MCM design though, with its 40mm MK 4 gun forward. Their use of USVs, UUVs (Think Canadian XLUUVs) and UAVs (Think Canadian Gargoyle 176 Helicopter drones) is very aggressive. Canada could also add 50 cals and 7.62mm auto guns as well as TRAPS or other “future proofing” capabilities. Reserve training on these MCMs, as we already do on the Kingston class, would not be a problem. Cheers!
I think that’s a bad idea. Reserves are more integrated than they ever were before and have dedicated billets on most classes of ships. It’s better for them to learn these skills on ships that do operations not a separate class.
To Ted Barnes. Your opinion Ted and you are certainly entitled to it. However, this would not be a “separate class” as you suggest. These “City class” MCMs would also have “training billets” on board specifically for Naval Reserves. They would be direct replacements for the Kingston class. Having Bofors 40mm MK 4 guns, TRAPs and the Gargoyle 176 drones (we already have these drones in the RCN inventory) and would be a very good start along with some “future proofing” for other government missions. Because they are larger & heavier than the Kingstons, we would only require no more than 10 (5 per coast). Cheers!
I was in GLA for some of the trials of TRAPS and it was been forward deployed by HMCS Harry DeWolf during their first Arctic deployment and it’s a great piece of kit. It can easily be purchased as it’s an option as a payload that can be easily installed. Let’s just say it was very successful, especially when it was deployed in the Arctic. The point is many types of payloads are available for the Kingston Class or any successor.
If it is indeed a OPV then it’s one of smallest and don’t forget MCDV stands for “Maritime Coastal Defence Vessel”. It has exceeded its original intent by a great deal. You are correct that the GOC will determine the capabilities of the replacement and I can tell you right now I have seen some of capability requirements, and missiles, 57mm guns etc are not part of it and highly doubtful it ever will be. It will be a MILCOT vessel and a non combatant and like the Kingston Class it’s replacing and the AOPS that it will be complimenting. What you’re describing is a corvette and it won’t be. Lightly armed, payload configurable, small crew and cheap to maintain. What you’re describing is something expensive as hell and not wanted.
Hello Ted. Yes, TRAPs as you are convinced “is a great piece of kit” and I tend to agree with you. As I said before having Bofors 40mm MK 4 guns for a basic AAW/ASuW capability, TRAPs for basic ASW and the Gargoyle 176 drones (these drones are already in the RCN inventory) and would be a very good start along with some “future proofing” for other government missions. One thing on TRAPs: if Canada does decide to buy your “great piece of kit” fot the Kingston class OPV replacements, what would this OPV do if TRAPs had a foreign sub “on the hook”. But this phantom sub would probably not be there for long. The only thing it could do would be to just report it to Ottawa for others to “take care of”. Not a good plan if hostilities were in play. Wait! XLUUVs on the “City” class carry light-weight torpedoes and could be used! Canada saves the day! MILCOTS is a great plan for this future OPV, and yes, “more expensive as hell” as you describe, but I believe wanted and needed more than ever! Have A Great Navy Day Ted!
To David Dunlop. Yes it certainly is my informed opinion who has sailed in the class for NATO NCM missions. Reservists are currently spread across all classes of ships already for training and we don’t pigeon hole them into one class or another. At least on face value you appear to have stopped demanding missile systems and other unneeded systems. Any replacement will have civilian equipment that is easy by itself to upgrade and keep current much like the existing Kingston class so no “future proofing” is required. The weight or displacement of any ship doesn’t make up for numbers so the 12 ships of the new class should be replaced one for one. We also have the PUMA drone system that the Kingston Class currently carries which is sufficient for the missions the Kingston Class replacement will carry out and will save money.
Hello Ted. It sounds as if you have had a lot of expertise with the Kingston class in either a Reserve or Reg force capacity (or both) and now are a bureaucrat in NDHQ advocating for the Kingston class replacements? If so, I would very much like your honest opinion on what class of ship Canada should either build or acquire for future replacements. If they had to be built in Canada, an off-shore” design would be the best way to go IMO. I disagree with you though that absolutely no “future proofing” is required for these replacements. There is always some “future-proofing” required with any new class of ship or submarine as is the case for the AOPS, CSC Frigates and JSS. The “City” class MCM OPVs are larger yes, but also can accommodate larger crews so the number of vessels required would be less than 12. The PUMA Drone was also trialed on the Halifax class but was an interim capability until the Gargoyle 176 Drone became available. The Canadian Army has also acquired a Land version of the 176 Drone. So, it is here to stay and will also be fitted on the CSC Type 26 Frigates and JSS as well. It is just the right size of drone that any Kingston class replacement would need. It has an IR Camera and Data Link capability and can be fitted in any 20 ft Sea container and takes only 2 personnel to operate it, assuming that this future OPV had enough helo landing deck space for it. I have mentioned a few OPVs that Canada could “kick-the-can” on for future replacements of the Kingston class, but everything is cast in mud as you know. One thing is just about certain however. These replacements will undoutedly have upgraded CONOPS for more “robust” missions that will be required by the RCN and government for these OPVs. Save money? Of course Ted, but at what cost either in capability or personnel.
Hello Jimmy. I agree with much of what you have said, however I do have some concerns. Not withstanding the ABS survey WRT the Kingston Class MCDVs, the time to start the process to search for a suitable OPV replacement is to move forward is now, and not wait until it’s “too late”. We have done this with the AOPS, JSS, CSC Type 26 Frigate programs, and the submarine replacement program especially. Just look at where Canada is today WRT those programs and with the National Ship-Building Strategy (NSS). I believe the very first thing the RCN must do is to stand-up a Kingston Class Replacement Program Team as was ‘finally” done with the Victoria Class SSK replacement and actively start the search for a much improved MCDV/OPV replacement. In a way, the search has un-officially started. Canadian Naval Engineering firm VARD Marine, Canada has offered the “Vigilance” Class as a Next Generation Off-shore Patrol Vessel (NGOPV) for the Canadian government and RCN.
Most of your “General Project” goals seem to be acceptable with a couple of caveats:
1. Your higher top speed requirement of 25+ kts is a good start with a larger hull, operational range and possibly Polar Class status.
2. I disagree with your armament requirements however. I would recommend, at a minimum, a Bofors 57mm gun forward along with at least 1 x 25mm gun system Aft along with the usual 50 cal positions, and some sort of Close In Air Defence (CIAD) system such as Sea-Ram or Sea Ceptor VLS midships.
3. I do believe the primary roles of this OPV should be Mine Warfare/MCM with a secondary role of ASW with both an HMS & Towed Array system. If you are going to look for submarines, you’d better be able to do something about them (if you can fined them) so I would also include some sort of Torpedo/Handling System & magazines for both guns and torpedoes. That would be nice to have (assuming the big bad sub didn’t get you first). An XLUUV Autonomous System would also be an excellent asset to have (Don’t forget XLUUVs can carry torpedoes as well that can be launched remotely).
4. If you are going to operate aerial drones such as the Gargoyle 176 Helicopter drone, you will need a hangar deck to at least launch and land “up to” a CH 148 Cyclone.
I agree with you that the RCN should go with a “duel design with both Mine Warfare and ASW capabilities. I agree the next Canadian OPV should not be a corvette, frigate or gun/missile boat but it has to be able to defend itself from either air, surface or sub-surface threats at a minimum. If this OPV design is going to be larger, then you will also need a larger crew and bunk spaces for say 70-90 personnel (male/female) per ship. This OPV must be cost effective for certain to build & operate for all mission requirements.
The government has been looking into the procurement. However as mentioned before Ottawa is pretty stretched currently in providing personnel and in standing up officially one more project office they just don’t have the capacity right now and like mentioned before that will likely change in a few years. Even the Victoria Class replacement project is just a few officers right now. Keeping the design simple will allow procurement to proceed quickly. If I were in charge of things I would task a design company with a list of requirements, using the Kingston Class capabilities and wants as a base and design a new Military/Civilian design. German Marine was able to design the Kingston Class in little over 2 years, we should be able to do the same.
While VARD marine has offered a unsolicited design, it remains to be seen that it will meet Canada’s requirements as we already have a OPV in the DeWolf Class. What we need is a multifunctional vessel specialized in changing configurations including NCM and can patrol as all naval vessels can. What we don’t need a large gun, large crews, flight decks, large AAV’s, missiles or ASW, as that adds to the cost and time of procurement and is not in accordance with the concept of operations for the Kingston Class. IF the GOC says suddenly we need armed corvettes or ASW then by means however they haven’t and more likely won’t. We need to be smart about this and keep the project lean and rely heavily on off the shelf civilian technology.
Ted Barnes has largely addressed what my response would have been, Ottawa is very much lacking with regards to the experienced people and resources to open yet another procurement program office at this point. The Victoria replacement office is very, very small and preliminary for the most part at this point. We shouldn’t be trying to rush these procurements when we are not in the proper place to properly undertake them. VARD’s proposal looks largely suitable and interesting however, it is an unsolicited proposal pitched towards the government by industry and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Regarding your comments about a potential armament, I would point you towards other OPV/MCM type vessels/designs at the moment and their armament. Vard’s Vigilance design has been mentioned specifically, that design features a single small caliber cannon forward and no other armament. Vard is likely well aware of what the RCN is looking for and it is quite telling that they chose to put such an armament aboard. The Dutch/Belgian City-class MCM vessels, they only have a single 40mm gun and some machine guns. The British River class OPV only has a 20mm/30mm cannon, the Argentinian Gowind OPV’s have a single 30mm cannon, the Australian Arafura-class OPV had a 40mm gun and went down to a 25mm gun. The amount of OPV/MCM vessels with large caliber guns/anti ship missiles is rather low compared to the ones which only have a small caliber cannon, the ones that do have these usually belong to nations who exist in dangerous areas of operation or to nations who have navies small enough where every single ship has to be multi-purpose. I can’t think of a single OPV/MCM type vessel with a missile based self defense system aboard, that is something you see aboard corvettes and frigates. Canada is not one of these nations, we are replacing the Kingston’s, not procuring another combatant.
Anti-submarine warfare is not a role which you can do cheaply (cheaply and effectively), which means by its very nature, trying to accomplish it aboard the Kingston replacement is a folly. Look at what Kingston does currently and that is the capability we will be replacing. The RCN utilizes these ships as mine warfare platforms and as low cost, versatile patrol ships. Pushing these ships into anti-submarine roles will actively distract from those roles alongside seriously driving up cost and complexity. Hull mounted sonars alongside specific ASW towed arrays, hull/machinery quieting and a full helo deck/hanger to properly do ASW roles will bloat the design, increase cost and increase specifically trained personnel required. This is specifically why I said the RCN doesn’t need a corvette or frigate.
I don’t think this design needs a flight deck capable of taking and launching a Cyclone, that would actively cut into the space aft for containerized packages while providing minimal capability. We do not have enough Cyclones to be sticking them aboard these vessels alongside the DeWolf’s, Frigates and shore postings. A smaller flight deck and hanger for drones is all that is required, just like Vard included on their Vigilance concept. You need additional space for the flight operations, embarked air personnel, torpedo reloads/magazines, aviation fuel, etc. Saab’s MCMV 80 design also features variants with a small UAV only deck and hanger, as does the Dutch/Belgian mine warfare vessel. This is a fairly common feature as time goes on to save weight and limit design creep, we don’t have a small maritime helicopter unless we want to get involved with another procurement.
A Kingston replacement is replacing the Kingston, we are not looking for a frigate or corvette. We do not deploy these ships anywhere where they would be required to be defending themselves from air attack, surface attack or against credible undersea threats. Leave these roles to the proper escorting ships purpose designed for such roles, trying to make it do all of these extra roles is counter intuitive to being a cost effective and simple design. That is design creep and we need to avoid it at all costs. I get it is a tempting time to try and “get whatever we can” out of this procurement but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We as Canadians interested in military procurement should be specifically very aware of this with how often our own programs suffer from mismanagement and problems, complexity should be avoided if at all possible. The Kingston class has given excellent service thus far without all of these additional combat systems put aboard, their replacements will similarly do fine without them as well. Just like how the DeWolf is armed and outfitted just fine for its role and operations, a Kingston replacement is just fine without ASW gear, self defense missiles and an array of various cannons aboard.
Hello Jimmy. I contend that now is the perfect time to open a Kingston class OPV replacement project. Yes, it would be small as is the submarine replacement program, but at least it would be started with hopefully the right OPV personnel to address the problems going forward. VARDs Vigilance class is only one option out of many that are out there either existing or on the drawing board. TRAPs is ASW “on the cheap” but still seems to be an effective piece of kit for a future OPV, as Israel is learning with their TRAPs-USVs. This future OPV does not need to carry a Cyclone and a Detachment crew, it just needs a flight deck strong enough to be able to at least land a CH 148 helicopter along with a hangar large enough for CH 176 Gargoyle Drones. That is why the Belgium/Netherlands/French Mine Warfare/MCM OPV is such a versatile and interesting concept. It also incorporates UAV, USV and UUV capabilities in one package. This “City” class OPV is not a corvette or frigate at all, but an OPV that is a standard Mine Warfare/Mine Counter Measures (MCM) vessel at its core with unique & versatile Autonomous Vehicle capabilities. This is a unique OPV to “replace” the Kingston class with a future procurement by Canada of perhaps 10 (5 OPVs per coast) with larger crews yes, and perhaps more expensive (somewhere possibly between 1.5-2B CAD for a fleet of 10 vessels) with enough space for “future-proofing”. Canada would have to join this three state consortium (Netherlands, Belgium & France) if it wanted to go ahead with this OPV class. The more countries that sign up, the cheaper the costs would become. Perhaps less than 1.5B CAD for 10 OPV vessels for Canada’s Kingston class replacements which of course would be built right here in good-old Canada! Just something to think about.
It very well may be a good time to start a project office however the decision was already made by those making the decisions not to and saves resources. Ottawa is not flush with people like back in your day. Even though we don’t have an official project office it is getting looked into as I get emails about this with frequency as I am a SME for the class. Every company seems to put out concept drawings for OPV’s, there are dozens of them yearly in fact. Again flight deck not needed as per reasons already given by others and the PUMA which doesn’t need a flight deck is already being used for Kingston Class operations. Other countries are doing interesting things with MCM capable ships however that doesn’t mean we have to follow their lead, we will undoubtedly continue with a class of ship with a MCM payload but will be able to do other things with expertise. If you think 10 ships of the “City Class” with the bells and whistles you mention are going to built in Canada for 2B you are completely wrong.
Are you saying Ted that the Kingston class will not be replaced for the long term to save money? Perhaps not the “City” class MCM but another less capable OPV? It also sounds like you believe (if the Kingstons” are eventually replaced) will be a Canadian designed and built here in Canada (or at least Canadianized here). If you are indeed an SME for the class, what specific capabilities and missions would you invision this Canadian OPV would be required to accomplish as a minimum in the future? For instance, how would you think this replacement “ship” would both defend itself and the crew? Perhaps not with all the “bells and whistles” Ted as you say, but what other capabilities would you envision this ship be able to accomplish? As I said before, CONOPS can change depending on government missions required. Do you have any “rough” estimates on building costs for 12 of these Kingston class replacements?
I think if the RCN viewed a Kingston replacement as being this vital, it would have officially began similarly to the submarine replacement but their silence on the matter is fairly telling. TRAPs seems all well and good but in the end, it’s still not a proper purpose built ASW system. It could be a useful sensor node for a greater ASW net but I question how wise it is to deploy this type of vessel to an area under proper submarine threat. The same goes for various unmanned systems, great potential supplements in the future but not the real “meat and potatoes” ASW capability found on the proper purpose built vessels. The Cyclone is a large and heavy helicopter, putting a flight deck aboard which supports landing it will be a large driver in the overall size of the vessel, this is one of the many reasons why AOPS is so large. Space is limited, such a size flight deck can very much cut into the available mission bay and deck space. As I said, the City class we have both mentioned shows this very well with its small UAV only flight deck.
The City class is a potential option but I do have concerns that it might not be suitable for Canada. It looks overly geared towards mine warfare and potentially unsuitable for our needs. The City class has effectively the same slow top speed of 15 knots as the Kingston class alongside the fact that its range is 3500 nmi at 15 knots, which is similar to or just barely better than the lacklustre range of the Kingston class. These vessels’ mechanical range and speed seem lacking, I’d imagine due to them being built around the relatively close European theatre distances. This very well might not work for what we want, given how we also need some OPV type traits in a good operational range and an improved speed. We might be better off designing our own vessel or adopting something else from abroad.
As far as I have been told as well, the CH-176 Gargoyle is an interim procurement for largely for testing purposes.
Hello Jimmy. Every Canadian ship class replacement Canada decides to acquire is “vital” to both the government and RCN, no matter how agonizingly long the process is. Just look at the CSC Type 26 Frigate program as an example. You are correct in that TRAPS is not a “hard-core” ASW TAS, but I believe it has good potential as an ASW “localization” tool for USVs (as Israel is now testing) or future Canadian Autonomous XLUUVs on a Canadian OPV. Also don’t forget that XLUUVs can carry ASW weapons like light-weight torpedoes. This future OPV may not have to “land” a Cyclone Helicopter on its flight deck if it could be used to hoist or land cargo or personnel to the OPVs smaller deck. The deck however should be large enough with a hanger big enough to house a CU-176 SKELDAR V-200 Drone or two in it. It may not even have to have a hanger to save space with the drone and all equipment housed in 20 ft containers and able to be “craned” on to the flight deck for DRONEOPS. This could be a “space-saver” for a Multi-Mission Bay (MMB) space for RHIBs, USVs and UUVs such as an XLUUV capability. Yes, Canada may have to design and build its own OPV to acquire these capabilities with a smaller flight deck; MMB with a Mission Bay Handling System. To design our own 12 ship OPV however, for Canada’s requirements with speeds of 25+ kts, would be very expensive as opposed to buying MILOTS OPVs. WRT the CU-176 Gargoyle Drone, contracts have already been awarded in 2019 to QinetQ, Canada in Medicine Hat, Alberta to deliver the UMS SKELDAR V-200 UAS to both the RCN and Army with an AESA Radar and Electro-Optic Infrared (EO/IR) Cameras. Ultra Marine (ULTRA) & UMS SKELDAR in October 2022 has also been awarded a 2nd Phase contract to explore the ASW sonobouy dispensing capability for the RCN as an ASW solution for the CU-176 SKELDAR V-200 Drone as well.
The VIGILANCE was designed specifically as a replacement for the MCDV with a focus on the domestic mission set while also covering off the things the KINGSTON does internationally but were not necessarily designed nor optimized to do. Trans-oceanic voyages to be forward-based (or forward-deployed) overseas with an extended 5000nm range and to do this is a safe, comfortable and efficient manner. The small caliber cannon is reflective of the vessel’s constabulary mission focus BUT the modularity arrangement allows for more teeth through embarked payloads whether this be torpedoes, mines or missiles. This is key to offering both a cost-effective and minimally-crewed vessel to counter two key challenges the RCN faces – people and budget. There is enough space/weight/power margin to accommodate self defense and fitted missile systems if that is the path the RCN chooses – this could include an advanced (perhaps larger) gun system with an anti-missile pattern. Also, FYI our 80m and 90m OPV for the Irish Naval Service has a 76mm gun so a larger caliber mount is possible on a mid-sized OPV we would of course defer to the navy for this but recommend a 25-40mm gun to be adequate for law enforcement and non-combatant duties. Also, for interest, VIGILANCE is the next generation of the 80m design in service with the Irish and the 85m design in service with New Zealand so a capable and proven vessel in the North Atlantic and Irish Sea as well as the very harsh conditions of the Southern Ocean.
Reply to Ted Barnes of 9 Jul 23 12:04
Hi Ted,
I suspect that I am showing my age. Do naval reserve divisions still deploy to the coasts for weekend cruises and longer summer cruises? If yes, in what ships do they sail? On what ships do their officers get to practise watch keeping and command?
Ubique.
Les
Les. You are showing your age I suspect. Naval Reserve Officers and Sailors have been serving and training on other RCN ships for many years now including the Halifax class, along with our AORs and the new AOPS, and have melted in with the reg force crews seamlessly and in some cases have exceeded the knowledge and requirements for both Officers and Sailors. They are a definite asset to any regular force crew as most senior sailors can attest to. Have A Great Navy Day!
They don’t do weekend cruises anymore not for many years. The summer reservists do come out and are placed on Kingston, Halifax and Harry DeWolf Class ships. We also have permanent billets on these classes that are filled with reservists for up to 3 year contracts. Officers start out on ORCA Class training boats before going to our different classes of ships mentioned.
Hi David and Ted,
Thank you for the education.
What you describe reminds me of the long boring winter months at HMCS Scotian doing little and learning the “customs and traditions of the navy” over and over again. Only the weekend cruises added something interesting.
Hopefully, the naval reserve divisions have found a way to combat this problem.
Ubique.
Les
Mr. Barnes listed 21 requirements (July 5th comment), some of which are official and some are his own wishes. I agree mostly with him. As some others have already said above, discussion is about MCDV replacement and not about a new combatant class. This being said, I would like to comment on three (may say six indeed) issues: propulsion and speed, weapons and defense systems and finally hangar and aircrafts.
To start, this is not the first time I read about the 25 knots requirement, so as to wonder to myself: Is it written in stone anywhere? I believe the mark comes from the British River class OPVs, in which (AFAIK) the main engines drive the shafts and propellers. However, for the Canadian icy waters the electric drive has provided excellent results as evidenced by the Kingston-class themselves. Electric drive also favors dynamic positioning, but it comes at a cost, in addition to the main diesel engines other equipment is needed such as generators, electric motors and power converters, all of which are heavy and take up substantial space. Should the reference top speed be 23 knots, the power reduction throughout every one of the elements of the power train would be (approx.) 20%, significantly reducing weight and volume. Still 23 knots is a 50% increase over the top speed of the MCDVs (15 knots), quite a improvement.
Secondly, I would like to see the new vessels fitted with one or two 40mm caliber gun(s), being a “nice” caliber to defeat aerial threats (57mm being even better), besides the 0.50 caliber positions. However this would introduce a new gun to the future fleet, adding more complexity to the supplies and maintenance chains which will by then deal with the AOPV’s 25mm gun (BAE Mk 38) and CSC’s 30mm gun (OTO Marlin). For the sake of commonality my choice would then be one of those. I would not discard a second gun (and fire-control system), same caliber, to be placed aft, both to better cover all directions and to better deal with swarm attacks, since drones are being cheaper and easily accessible to non-state agents.
Moreover, I would also include in the requirements list softkill countermeasures or decoys, such as Rheinmetall’s MASS (Multi Ammunition Softkill System), mounted not only on destroyers and frigates (including Halifax-class) but also on mine hunters and patrol vessels (1). I guess it also might be in Mr. Barnes’ wishes since the list was not exhaustive.
Finally, regarding aircraft capabilities, once more we need to balance wishes against weight and volume. Probably we all may agree in that a hangar for UAVs is a must. I would dare to say it must be capable to host at least two of them, one light, fixed-wing for ISR (RQ-20 Puma) and one rotary-wing UAV, both being organic elements to the vessels. While the RCN is nowadays operating the CU-176 Gargoyle (40 kg payload), space should be considered to host larger UAVs in the future, featuring larger payloads (100 kg and above) such as the Canadian Laflamme Aero LX300. These rotary-wing UAVs might be of use for many tasks, including search and rescue, cargo delivery, intelligence gathering, multimode and electronic surveillance, communications relay or maybe carry on long-range acoustic devices to deal with small manned boats.
On the other hand, regarding the flight deck, if the requirement for landing a Cyclone is too demanding (13,300 kg MTOW, max. take-off weight), I would suggest the RCN to ponder other options. Not saying to buy new type of helicopters, but being able to host them: either the CCG’s Bell 429 (3,200 kg MTOW), Bell 412 EPI (5,400 MTOW) or up to the USCG’s MH-60 Jayhawk (9,900 kg MTOW), used for SAR, maritime patrol and drug interdiction operations. In any case the capability to land and take-off a manned helicopter, which may cover great distances at high speeds, could be of great relevance for SAR, evacuation or emergency supplies, for instance.
(1)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi_Ammunition_Softkill_System
Hello J. Cañadas. Your reference to top speeds of 23 kts for a 50% improvement of the Kingston class replacements sounds reasonable. The Bofors 40mm MK 4 for both Fore & Aft would make a lot of sense however, I believe the CSC Frigates 30mm Marlin systems both Fore & Aft would be a better option for commonality. The Bofors 57mm systems on the Halifax class frigates could also be refurbished and then retrofited on any future OPVs as well in the forward position on any future OPV replacement as each Halifax class Frigate is de-commissioned. The use of the German made Multi-Ammunition Softkill System (MASS) for both the Halifax class and would also be a great option for any OPV replacements. It is not known, at this time, whether the CSC Frigates will have this system however. Although the Laflamme Aero LX300 has a larger payload and greater endurance along with much improved ISR characteristics, I suspect it was not selected over the CU-176 Gargoyle Drone due to costs. IMO, we do not need both the RQ-20 Puma Drone for future OPVs as we already have the CU-176 Gargoyle Drone system in service now & could fit 2 x 20ft containers for the Gargoyle in the smaller hanger. If larger UAV helos are able to be fitted as a “future-proofing” upgrade ($$), then perhaps the LX 300 could be an update option to the Gargoyle Drones as this heavier UAS will also fit into 20 ft containers as well.
All this talk of OPV capabilities is very beguiling. Yet, the 800-pound gorilla in the room has not been addressed. How can the RCN (Reg & Reserve) hope to crew all the vessels it aspires to acquire? Yes, they all won’t be at sea at the same time. But we can barely crew what we have now.
Something will have to give.