By Mikael Perron, 24 July 2024
In terms of organisation, how could the Vigilance-class fit the RCN? First, the Kingston-class was originally supposed to be operated by the Naval Reserve members. This has now changed, and the ships are now operated by a mix of regular and reserve sailors. I believe that a reorganization of the Naval Reserve is much overdue. We need two kinds of Naval Reservist. We need some as we know them now, meaning direct entry people but we need them only in specific trades that can be easily and quickly trained to go on any class of ships -- trades like Boatswain, clerk and supply technicians. I would then create a new type of naval reservist. It would be a bit like the Air reserve. It would be people who are minimum QL5 qualified and that are retired from the Regular Forces. They would be from all trades (I am thinking here Marine Engineer Technician, Combat System Marine Technician but others also). They would work so many days per month on A class and could do B or C class contract if they chose to do so. Like in the RCAF, they would work during business days alongside the Regular Forces counterparts. They could share their expertise through support of our training facilities. They could also support maintenance teams ashore while the crew takes rest and conducts refresher training. A lot of expertise could be kept and shared this way. I found this to work well in the RCAF. I believe that the Naval Reserve holds much more potential that is being actually used.
But that does not solve it all. The addition of 18 or so Vigilance-class vessels over 12 Kingston-class would be a great retention tool; not only by the quick purchase of modern platforms but by the many promotion and transfer opportunities. The RCN needs many positions to develop leadership at the NCM and officer level. It is no secret the naval leadership is under-represented at NDHQ and that we need to develop more individuals if we want to see a sailor for CDS more regularly!
Then you ask me where we would find so many sailors? Well I dare say the River-class! I propose to build all 15 ships but only to man 12 ships at a time. So as the 13th, 14th and 15th ships are delivered to the Navy, we would set aside the 1st, second and third ship. They would be mothballed or used for shore training but more important they could be used at some point for a third-of-life refit and technology insertion program and rejoin the fleet so the 4th, 5th and 6th could be mothballed at the end of the cycle and so on so forth. We would always have 12 state-of-the-art ships and 4 at high readiness regardless of the age of the class until we replace them.
I know all of this seem very optimistic! But we need optimism now days. Naval forces are a very effective way to support our allies worldwide. Sometimes you need something more discrete than a fully armed destroyer. Naval forces can remain on station for a very long time and with a very limited logistic footstep compared to other contributions. At the very least, this proposal seems like a fair one for one replacement for the Kingston-class. Out of the box thinking is required.
10 thoughts on “Vigilance Class and the Possibilities: Part 3”
CANSEC 2023 was a great show. But I doubt Vigilance-class is going to happen for the RCN. It seems MCDVs are not employed as per original design intent. Then why bother replacing them? Is this to support Naval Reserve recruitment and retention?
They are going to be needed to be replaced as the divestment plan is set placing every ship along side as their statement of structural integrity is set to expire. No more refits of a Kingston Class either.
Unless Vard can fix the potential range and endurance requirements of the Vigilance, then they’ll have a tough time coming out on top.
A vessel of this size is also likely too big for the Kingston Class replacement. If it is North of 1500 tons then there are far better options out there.
We don’t need a missile boat. If we want a missile boat, let’s get an actual missile boat instead of a Frankenstein of one.
I think a “jack of all trades” type ship as represented by the Vigilance proposal is an interesting proposition. Like the Type-26 CSC River-class destroyer modifications the RCN is implementing (air, submarine, land, ship-to-ship warfare capabilities), the Vigilance is similar but on a much smaller scale – perfect for multi-role deployments in littoral or blue water operations. However, more details are certainly required for a complete analysis (tonnage, complement, range, speed, etc.).
While I am really impressed and excited for the upcoming River-class ships there are two main issues: delivery dates and complement. If the last delivery is coming 2050s, Canada will need other ships to supplement our navy sooner than later. Also, 15 destroyers (if all operational simultaneously) will require a complement of approx 2,355 crew (157 per). Reducing the number of destroyers to 10 in total with 8 operational, will allow the RCN to disperse crew across more vessels and participate in more operations giving Canada a wider footprint on the global stage.
I don’t think following the British plan to have a mix of both Type-26 and Type-31/32 (8000t and 5700t) is the way to go for Canada. I’d rather see several more of the bigger “destroyers” supplemented with smaller OPVs that could operate as task units if needed. Let’s face it, unless a major war happens, the majority of RCN’s operations are escort, policing and deterrence (but at the same time let’s not be complacent).
Finally, in another article there was discussion for the need to land helicopters on any future OPVs. I don’t think this is necessary because: 1) Canada really doesn’t have enough naval helicopters to support this (the CH-148 debacle is another discussion); 2) the future is drone warfare which is both cheaper and requires less crew to operate; 3) this would require a much larger and costlier vessel which would reduce the number of OPVs Canada could buy and fully crew.
Hello “GD”. The number of CSC River Class Destroyers will not, I repeat, will not be reduced by 5 CSC River Class Destroyers to augment a ‘beefier’ Vigilance class or any other vessel class Canada wants to replace the Kingston class with. The RCN needs every one of those 15 CSC River class Destroyers and sooner rather than later!! I do agree with you that whatever OPV class Canada goes with to replace the Kingston’s, they will not have flight decks or hangars to accommodate heavy-lift helos like the Cyclone but UAVs will be a different issue and will be housed in smaller hangars. I believe the Harry DeWolf class AOPS can accommodate up to a heavy lift helo but more Cyclones will have to be acquired for the AOPS fleet. Your assumption that the CSC fleet will all be operational at the same time is not realistic and will never happen. There will be no less than 2 operational River Class Squadrons (one per coast) to include 4 x Operational Destroyers maximum per SQN for Task Group (TG) missions per coast. The remainder of the fleets (East/West) will be in ramp up/ramp down mode with at least 1 x River class in deep maintenance per coast. In my opinion Canada needs at least 1 more JSS to augment the Protecteur class JSS for task group command duties within the River class SQNs. Because River class ships will almost never be fully manned, crew complements will always fluctuate to some degree but the core vital positions will always be there. It will be up to the RCN to ‘gear-up’ recruitment to help keep the fleet afloat (so to speak).
Hey David, I appreciate the feedback and comments. I am new to the forum, so no need to come out swinging the big stick – easy ahead!
My “assumption that the CSC fleet will all be operational at the same time” was used merely as an exercise to show crew requirements to operate the proposed 15 new CSCs at a complement of 157 per ship (this is the number I found online). But more on this later.
If the RCN needs to replace a total of 28 ships (4 x Iroquois destroyers, 12 x Halifax frigates, and 12 x Kingston MCDVs) does this need to be a 1:1 number? What is the optimal number of ships the RCN needs to achieve its mandate? (Of course, more is always better).
With its modern array of armament and systems, what does a single River-class CSC equate to? 1 x CSC = 2 x Halifax? 2 CSC = 1 Iroquois + 2 Halifax? Etc, etc, etc. Certainly, the River-class has much higher capabilities than either of the ships it is replacing. However, one thing a CSC can’t do is be in two places at once…
At the same time, how much more capable is a Vigilance Flight II type ship compared to a Kingston MCDV? It can certainly take on all the same duties plus more and more. Again, does a single Vigilance equal two MCDVs? Do three Vigilance Flight II OPVs equal a single CSC?
I think the RCN needs to be as versatile and deployable in as many zones as possible. Is a CSC needed for policing shipping lanes from piracy or similar type duties? Could a well-equipped and versatile vessel such as the Vigilance Flight II perform those similar duties? Would a single CSC and two Vigilance-type ships deployed as a task unit be more versatile than two CSCs?
As for complement, if a CSC requires a crew of 150 and a OPV requires a crew of 50, the RCN can deploy three OPVs versus a single CSC. As to my point above – there are only so many crew members available, but more ships are needed than crew can complement. Again, versatility should not be discounted versus pure “fire power”.
So what is the optimal number of CSCs and OPVs that could operate to replace the duties of 28 ships? Is it 15 CSCs and 10 OPVs? Or 10 CSCs and 20 OPVs? Or # CSCs and # OPVs? I think having more ships provides the RCN with more options and to be active in more locations which will certainly help “fly the flag” across the globe.
To your point about an additional JSS, yes definitely another is needed! Especially if a large fleet of OPVs needs to be supported..
I don’t have the answers, but I certainly like thinking about the question… And as the article ends, “Out of the box thinking is required.” I couldn’t agree more.
P.S. What government, I repeat, what government doesn’t ever change its mind???
Hello GD. We all have heard that cry countless times before from others to decrease the numbers of CSC River class down to at least 12 and lower amounts as well. The CSC River class minimum crew sailing requirements of 157 personnel sounds reasonable to sail with and should not go below that number in order to get every CSC Destroyer to sea that we can. The RCN has been “robbing Peter to pay Paul” for far too long and that must stop now! When we had a fair sized fleet we actually had 4 x AAW ships; 12 x Frigates with 3 x tankers (Protecteur, Preserver & Provider) along with 12 x Kingston class MCDVs, and 4 x Victoria class submarines along with other smaller craft but we had the personnel to accomplish that. Others have said that a larger fleet of Vigilance type class ships would be better – around 18 – (read cheaper). a “beefed-up” Vigilance class is an option, but just that, only an option “up to 12 ships only”. What Canada really needs is to first select a submarine fleet of 8-12 Arctic capable boats to replace our aging Victoria class fleet and then decide what type of Kingston class replacement we want to compliment the 15 River class with. There are other options to be had out there including the UK Type 31 or 32 OPVs. This will all take many years to happen. Even before we decide on what LIB/AIP subs we need the CAF’s top priority is to get our “people strength” back up to where it is needed (down by at least 16,000 RCN, Army & RCAF, and counting). Our recruitment policies need to change and fast! Most Canadians are “out of the box thinkers” so hopefully this personnel quagmire we are in now will change! Not trying to “swing a big stick” as you say GD, but I would only wish governments and others would understand the real problems and get it right the first time! The 2% of GDP defence spending requirement by NATO is only a starting point for Canada. A more realistic goal is up to at least a 3-5 % of GDP spending on defence before the end of this decade! There…..enough ranting for one day! Cheers!
Hello Michael. Here is another thought. If (and only if) the Vigilance class OPV were actually selected in some form or another to replace the Kingston class OPVs, here is a list of names that may be appropriate (some have an RCN association from the past while others do not:
VIGILANCE CLASS OPVs
CLASS MAME HULL NUMBER
1. HMCS VIGILANCE- 720
2. HMCS VALOUR- 721
3. HMCS VANGUARD- 722
4. HMCS VIMY RIDGE- 723
5. HMCS VICTORIAVILLE- 724
6. HMCS VOYAGEUR- 725
7. HMCS VENTURE- 726
8. HMCS VALLEYFIELD- 727
9. HMCS VICTORIOUS- 728
10. HMCS VISIONARY- 729
11. HMCS VIGOROUS- 730
12. HMCS VENCEDOR- 731
Other options might include: HMCS VIKING; HMCS VIABLE; HMCS VENERABLE; HMCS VERSATILE & HMCS VIRTUOUS. What say you and Forum members?
Hello David. A ‘V’ class to replace the Kingston class, why not? What will be the final form of the MCDV replacement and when will it happen, we don’t know. In the meantime, team Vigilance keeps on adding players to their team. It will be interesting to follow that file but, like the CSC’s case, we will need to be patient. Hopefully the submarine project moves forward faster!
Cheers.
Hi David, I like the naming suggestions. I would not use proper nouns such as people and places, and would stick with names such as, Vigilance, Valour, Victorious, etc. I’ll throw Viceroy and Vanquish into the mix.
To our previous discussion re: River-class vs Vigilance-class, I have come around and fully support the RCN purchasing 15 of the CSC River-class vessels due to their extreme versatility and capabilities. (I think the Canadian version of the Type-26 offers the best all round abilities vs the UK and Australian variants.) Also, I would rather have just the Type-26 River-class over a mix of it and the Type-31/32 – even if that meant fewer number of total ships. I believe I may have read somewhere that even the UK is reconsidering its Type-26 and Type-31 mix as they determined the Type-26 is a better option.
After reviewing the Vigilance-class further, I don’t think in its current configuration (even Fight II) has enough organic onboard armament to perform multi-role deployments to be a viable smaller alternative to the CSC (even when deployed in numbers). Certainly the Cube system allows for versatility, but in HADR missions when carrying relief supplies on deck, would the Vigilance be able to defend itself from multiple hostile attacks? I think a slightly larger vessel (say 2000t) that can carry relief supplies and has organic surface-to-surface missile and torpedo systems might be a better option. At the same time, using the Vigilance Flight II with Cube armament systems could make the ship a good escort vessel to another ship carrying HADR supplies. But, yes, the RCN will need to determine what roles a Vigilance-type ship will need to perform and how it should be configured.
So in the end, maybe we only need to come up with 10 Vigilance-class names?