Just a clue to the participants in this thread:
This theme of course is prone to political comments, that are NOT part of an article/link/source, whatever, but just the posters opinion.
So, please think twice before posting !
Thanks, Jemiba. I see you are in Berlin (where I was a guest at Kunsthaus Tacheles in 2003: great city), so you might not be aware of the longstanding anti-Americanism in Quebec and Ontario. I am most familiar with the people of those two provinces, for geographic reasons and because they contain about 60% of Canada's population. From my first stay there as a kid in 1982, I was made aware that this is a real thing (not just the work of Russians and Communist Chinese with fake accounts, paid to stir up hatred). So booing of the United States anthem in Quebec and Ontario during joint sports events is no surprise to me, nor the alleged Canadian need to mine the Great Lakes and acquire nuclear weapons to incinerate US cities like my own. (I have been told that Canadians from, say, Newfoundland and the prairie provinces are considerably less maudlin.) I was going to see whether the non-pertinent comments here would peter out naturally before I told them: take it outside. Let's you and me continue to keep appropriate watch. Of course, vigorous and pointed debate about the actual topic of this thread, the past, present, and future of Canada's naval strategy, is welcome.
The most important proposal is the transformation of Forward Operating Location Iqaluit into a full, permanent Canadian Forces Base. The proposal includes the infrastructure to base and operate F-35A's, P-8 MPA and presumably Sky Guardian drones while the port itself will serve as a point of resupply for RCN and CCG vessels. While such a base will dramatically increase our presence throughout the Arctic, the construction of such a facility will be excessively difficult and expensive due to the remote location and regulations required due to the sensitive environment of the Arctic. Deployments to such a base also will face an uphill battle to attract personnel, as many people do not want to move alongside their families to a frozen, sub-zero hellscape which is perpetually light or dark depending on the time of year. There was also the announcement of an additional 2,000 Canadian Rangers being hired, which is very valuable.
.....
First off, most of those northern deployments would be "single, unaccompanied" lasting perhaps 6 months with the wives and kiddies remaining in Halifax or Winnipeg or some other Southern Canadian city with decent schools, etc.
Secondly, since white guys tend to suffer seasonal affective disorder during long arctic nights, include tanning booths to up their ration of ultra-violet light. A smaller option is installing UV lights under chairs to shine on the thin skin on the backs of their knees.
Third, hire more Inuit, Dene, Cree, etc. whose families adapted to that climate thousands of years ago.
Thanks, Jemiba. I see you are in Berlin (where I was a guest at Kunsthaus Tacheles in 2003: great city), so you might not be aware of the longstanding anti-Americanism in Quebec and Ontario. I am most familiar with the people of those two provinces, for geographic reasons and because they contain about 60% of Canada's population. From my first stay there as a kid in 1982, I was made aware that this is a real thing (not just the work of Russians and Communist Chinese with fake accounts, paid to stir up hatred). So booing of the United States anthem in Quebec and Ontario during joint sports events is no surprise to me, nor the alleged Canadian need to mine the Great Lakes and acquire nuclear weapons to incinerate US cities like my own. (I have been told that Canadians from, say, Newfoundland and the prairie provinces are considerably less maudlin.) I was going to see whether the non-pertinent comments here would peter out naturally before I told them: take it outside. Let's you and me continue to keep appropriate watch. Of course, vigorous and pointed debate about the actual topic of this thread, the past, present, and future of Canada's naval strategy, is welcome.
One of the reasons that Ontarians and Quebecouis do not want to become American is that the second wave of white settlers were United Empire Loyalists (some of my ancestors) who backed the losing side in the American Revolutionary War and were encouraged (e.g. tarred-and-feathered and run out of town on a rail) after the ARW.
The Mohawks (Iroquois Confederacy) who now live along the borders of Quebec, Ontario and upstate New York alos backed the losing side in the ARW and were "encouraged" to move north after the war.
The second issue is French Quebecouis who were in at the start of the whole French and Indian Wars that preceded the ARW.
Acadians from the Maritime Provinces have an even dimmer view of the whole French and Indian Wars, ARW, Seven Years War, etc. as they tried to remain neutral during the various silly wars between European Empires and were deported when they tried to conform to an old treaty about their neutrality.
Finally, booing the American nation anthem is out of character for most Canadians who try to remain polite ... to a fault. Sad when Canadians do Trump's dirty work for him.
One-on-one, most Canadians find most Americans likeable, but collectively Americans can get weird at times. Just yesterday I was in a business meeting with an American who is looking to work outside the USA for the next 4 years.
To give an idea what 1,000 tonnes lightship displacement looks like (approx. 1,300 tonnes full load), here is the 85m long Gowind Control OPV.
This is about as long & thin as one could make it... more likely length will be constrained to 75m in order to provide more stability / beam / freeboard etc. Very unlikely that ice strengthening would be feasible within such a tight weight limit.
Why such soft bilges?
That hull would roll in a heavy dew (reference to WW2 Flower Class Corvettes).
Heavy rolls make it doubly difficult to land a helicopter.
The DDH 280 class had square bilges and a rolling problem. When I served onboard HMCS Iroquois, they said that the class record was a 45 degree roll during a storm. I saw 30 degree rolls a few times when I was working on the flight deck.
The rolling problem was mainly caused by a huge hangar and a high center of gravity. The huge hangar contained two large Sea King helicopters and was even wider than the hull! Those tall sides and square corners really caught the wind.
Part of the rectangular hangar bulkhead shape was driven by the rectangular roll-up doors. Hangars could have gotten more rounded corners farther forward as the upper, forward corners were empty and too cumbersome for storage.
A more sophisticated hangar door configuration (clam shells?) could help reduce wind resistance.
If this CMC is to operate on both East and West coasts, you also need to account for the North Pacific's longer swell lengths. Conventional wisdom suggests 100 metres loa as ideal rather than 75 m.
Gotta agree with this.
I learned how to drive subs in the Pacific.
Got transferred to a sub that had come over from the East Coast.
They didn't understand how big the swells could get.
Watched me slam full dive on the planes (edit) and hold it once, "helm, WTF?!?"
We didn't lose any depth.
"BIG swell, Dive."
I suppose, Apophenia. And this kind of careful attention to local conditions is why Canada needs Canadian expertise in warship design. But it's possible to have so many fussy ideals that nothing ever gets built. Vancouver was doing fine in those waters with much shorter ships in the 1790s.
...Even if a ship does not have a dedicated helicopter, it still needs a flight deck for cross-decking the padre Sunday mornings, admiral's barge, .... er ... cough ... cough ... mid-ocean search and rescue, etc. missions. Back when HMCS Iroquois was attached to the Standing NATO Force Atlantic, we had a pair of dedicated Sea Kings and our flight deck often hosted Lynxes, etc. from other NATO navies when admirals wanted to visit, etc. Yes, it is possible to use winches to lower passengers onto the deck, but is an order-of-magnitude safer to land on the deck and let them walk onboard.
Perhaps this proposed RCN ship needs a flight deck similar to the Canadian Coast Guard with a dedicated flight deck and a telescoping hangar to protect the helo from rain and spray.
Master Corporal (reti'd) Rob Warner airframe technician - Grumpy, old, grey-bearded former flight deck crew onboard HMCS Athabaskan and HMCS Iroquois.
...Heavy rolls make it doubly difficult to land a helicopter.
The DDH 280 class had square bilges and a rolling problem. When I served onboard HMCS Iroquois, they said that the class record was a 45 degree roll during a storm. I saw 30 degree rolls a few times when I was working on the flight deck.
The rolling problem was mainly caused by a huge hangar and a high center of gravity. The huge hangar contained two large Sea King helicopters and was even wider than the hull! Those tall sides and square corners really caught the wind.
Part of the rectangular hangar bulkhead shape was driven by the rectangular roll-up doors. Hangars could have gotten more rounded corners farther forward as the upper, forward corners were empty and too cumbersome for storage.
A more sophisticated hangar door configuration (clam shells?) could help reduce wind resistance.
Welcome aboard this thread, Mr Warner. I and others are glad to have a Royal Canadian Navy veteran here. When your two Iroquois-class destroyers were rolling 30 degrees, by "working the flight deck" do you indeed mean that a CH-124 Sea King was coming aboard in those conditions, presumably with Beartrap assistance? I am getting seasick just picturing this.
And the Iroquois class was four times the displacement of the proposed Canadian Multi-Mission Corvette. Tough to imagine a CMC landing a CH-148 Cyclone or CH-149 Cormorant in anything above a flat calm, even with the more aerodynamic ship features that you mention.
The most important proposal is the transformation of Forward Operating Location Iqaluit into a full, permanent Canadian Forces Base. The proposal includes the infrastructure to base and operate F-35A's, P-8 MPA and presumably Sky Guardian drones while the port itself will serve as a point of resupply for RCN and CCG vessels. While such a base will dramatically increase our presence throughout the Arctic, the construction of such a facility will be excessively difficult and expensive due to the remote location and regulations required due to the sensitive environment of the Arctic. Deployments to such a base also will face an uphill battle to attract personnel, as many people do not want to move alongside their families to a frozen, sub-zero hellscape which is perpetually light or dark depending on the time of year. There was also the announcement of an additional 2,000 Canadian Rangers being hired, which is very valuable...
First off, most of those northern deployments would be "single, unaccompanied" lasting perhaps 6 months with the wives and kiddies remaining in Halifax or Winnipeg or some other Southern Canadian city with decent schools, etc.
Secondly, since white guys tend to suffer seasonal affective disorder during long arctic nights, include tanning booths to up their ration of ultra-violet light. A smaller option is installing UV lights under chairs to shine on the thin skin on the backs of their knees.
Third, hire more Inuit, Dene, Cree, etc. whose families adapted to that climate thousands of years ago.
Thanks, Rainbow 1910. For a prospective CFB Iqaluit, my first thought after reading your comments was like Riggerrob's: hire local Canadians, who presumably don't consider the area a "hellscape". The Poilievre video mentions many Russian bases in northern Siberia, and the USA has operated Thule Air Force Base (now Pituffik Space Base) and its deepwater port for eighty years now. And the even harsher Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station has been manned since 1956. So conditions in northern Canada, especially south of the Arctic Circle like Iqaluit is, can't be impossible.
No discussion of XLUUV (e.g. Solus-XR) designed to be able to settle on the bottom in Arctic archipelago and then slip out to lay mines if given the order?
Another way to reinforce an arctic presence, including observers (in a role similar to the Canadian Rangers) is to fund science operations and bases in the high arctic. Unfortunately most of the funding for these has been cut for political reasons (a mixture of austerity opposing pure research, and pressure from opposition to climate research).
I suppose, Apophenia. And this kind of careful attention to local conditions is why Canada needs Canadian expertise in warship design. But it's possible to have so many fussy ideals that nothing ever gets built. Vancouver was doing fine in those waters with much shorter ships in the 1790s.
No discussion of XLUUV (e.g. Solus-XR) designed to be able to settle on the bottom in Arctic archipelago and then slip out to lay mines if given the order?
Well, it allows one to escalate through denying (or contesting) access to an area with relatively passive ordinance if your little ice-breaking frigate is ignored by a much stronger world power.
I suppose, Apophenia. And this kind of careful attention to local conditions is why Canada needs Canadian expertise in warship design. But it's possible to have so many fussy ideals that nothing ever gets built. Vancouver was doing fine in those waters with much shorter ships in the 1790s.
Yeah, "fussy ideals". But are you seriously going to compare modern OPV/corvette operations to those of a converted whaler with sails from the 18th Century?
George Vancouver's HMS Discovery needed a serious wind behind her to hit 8 knots. The mentioned Vigilance class OPV cruises at 16 knots, hitting a max of 21 knots. If the CMC project is not aimed at a top speed of at least 20 knots then the Directorate of Naval Requirements is wasting everyone's time.
First off, most of those northern deployments would be "single, unaccompanied" lasting perhaps 6 months with the wives and kiddies remaining in Halifax or Winnipeg or some other Southern Canadian city with decent schools, etc.
Secondly, since white guys tend to suffer seasonal affective disorder during long arctic nights, include tanning booths to up their ration of ultra-violet light. A smaller option is installing UV lights under chairs to shine on the thin skin on the backs of their knees.
Third, hire more Inuit, Dene, Cree, etc. whose families adapted to that climate thousands of years ago.
I cannot imagine these postings are going to be especially popular or sought after unless they come with some extensive benefits packages and even then, that is going to be an uphill battle in our current climate of low morale and poor staff retention.
If the CAF can actually bring these groups in and they are interested, sure. I'm not sure how many of these groups are interested in the work given the general profile of minorities within the CAF though, it definitely won't work in the short term when they immediately need high skilled jobs like F-35 maintainers.
Thanks, Rainbow 1910. For a prospective CFB Iqaluit, my first thought after reading your comments was like Riggerrob's: hire local Canadians, who presumably don't consider the area a "hellscape". The Poilievre video mentions many Russian bases in northern Siberia, and the USA has operated Thule Air Force Base (now Pituffik Space Base) and its deepwater port for eighty years now. And the even harsher Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station has been manned since 1956. So conditions in northern Canada, especially south of the Arctic Circle like Iqaluit is, can't be impossible.
I don't think advertising the Russians as an alternative is especially relevant, given their penchant for personnel neglect and abuse lol. Iqaluit is not an impossible posting but it is entirely an uphill battle to make this base realistically work, given the issues facing the force. The area is not especially hospitable to the vast majority of Canadians who serve within the CAF, and those would be the pool you are drawing from for staff.
No discussion of XLUUV (e.g. Solus-XR) designed to be able to settle on the bottom in Arctic archipelago and then slip out to lay mines if given the order?
Captain Drew Graham (Director of Naval Requirements) recently outlined an ongoing RCN capability for this exact thing.
UEA (Underwater Environmental Awareness)
- Large underwater uncrewed vehicle, effectively a submarine with its own deployable towed array sonar.
- Will deploy RDFAS (Rapidly Deployable Forward Deployed Anonymous Sensors) to act as a sensor net in an area, largely to detect submarines and surface vessels.
- Able to be deployed from vessels like AOPS using containers as storage.
- Primarily designed for long duration (up to 30+ days) Arctic patrol missions.
- Secondary goals of route surveys, providing modern navigation data in remote areas.
- Funded currently, with an introduction timeline of 2031 to 2035.
George Vancouver's HMS Discovery needed a serious wind behind her to hit 8 knots. The mentioned Vigilance class OPV cruises at 16 knots, hitting a max of 21 knots. If the CMC project is not aimed at a top speed of at least 20 knots then the Directorate of Naval Requirements is wasting everyone's time.
The crew of HMCS Glace Bay were quite kind to me when I visited, but I agree that the Kingston class's 15 knots is marginal for a Battle of the Atlantic subchaser 85 years ago, much less a modern warship. "Fussy ideals" wasn't meant to offend, but to forcefully emphasize the centuries-old truism that a given size of ship (and its budget) can only fit in a limited number of good-things-to-have before matters become impractical. Hard choices among good things have been, and will continue to be, a requirement. I suspect that Captain Graham and his team have come to understand this truism better than any of us. We will see what results from the interesting Canadian Multi-Mission Corvette program. I'm no naval architect, but for what it's worth, your hard floor of 20 knots in an average sea is approximately my own thinking, with speedier preferable.
20-22 knots should not be too hard. I have some tank testing data for a 1,500 ton OPV that shows that you need 2x 2.1MW for 20 knots, 2x 2.6MW for 21 knots and 2x 3.4MW for 22 knots.
Which translates to 2x 3-5MW diesels once you factor in the appropriate sea margins (~15%) and engine margins (~20%) to be able to sustain those speeds in operational conditions (as opposed to just during sea trials). More speed would require more or bigger diesels, which becomes a problem if there's a hard tonnage limit.
Adding below an updated comparison of several patrol / corvette designs in the 1,000 - 2,000 ton range. These bracket the ~1,000 tonne light displacement limit which appears to be a requirement. I've included 2 modern options (Fassmer OPV 70 and Naval Group 87m Gowind OPV) with a few slight mods of my own to illustrate what could be achievable within this tonnage limit.
Personally I lean towards a long / thin design like the ~85m Gowind, especially if seakeeping (pitching) and speed are a priority. With a small, lightweight aluminum superstructure and good roll stabilization system I think the slightly narrower hull that typical OPVs wouldn't be too detrimental. The alternative is a shorter ~75m hull (like Fassmer) with more beam which allows for more freeboard, so it's a tough tradeoff.
Canadian Multi-Mission Corvette (CMMC)
D: 1,000 tonnes light / 1,400 tonnes full load
Dim: 85.5 x 13 x 3.3m (overall), 85 x 11.7m (waterline)
S: 22-23kts on diesels (e.g. 2x 4.4MW 20V MAN 175D), optional electric mode up to 10 kts (2x 200 KWe)
R: 6,000 nm @ 15 kts
Crew: 40-55 pax / 3-4 weeks supply
Fitted for / Optional modular payloads:
1x 57mm main gun
Midships bay for 2x 40ft Mk70 containers (8 cells for SM-3, SM-6, quad packed ESSM) or 4x 20ft (UAVs…)
Modular stern bay for 2x 30ft RHIBs/USVs + 3x 20ft containers
ASW: Towed sonar (instead of 1x RHIB) + 2x triple torpedo tubes in 20ft containers
Given the two VERY different oceans the Canadians are dealing with, it might be worthwhile in terms of sea-keeping to build two different hulls with identical systems inside.
As mentioned, the Pacific "strongly requests" a longer hull, while the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans "strongly request" a hull with more freeboard than that long-and-slender hull that is good for the Pacific.
Obviously, the true ideal would be a bigger ship. But if politicians insist on being stupid and limiting the size of the ships produced, you really need a Pacific class and an Atlantic/Arctic class.
Vard released a new advertisement in the newest edition of Canadian Defence Review and it featured an updated Vigilance variant alongside the "current" model we've had for over a year. Given how aggressively Vard has pushed Vigilance and how they seem to have a finger on the pulse of the CMMC program, I thought it would be interesting to look into what can be seen in this graphic. Take this with a large dose of salt as this is the first place this new "Vigilance 100" design has been seen to my knowledge, and this is very much a "reading the tea leaves" exercise with a somewhat sketchy graphic.
TLDR: Bigger design (either right on or far above the NSS 1,000t light limit) with organic helicopter capability, same sensor suite as previous Vigilance designs, moving away from the previous mission deck aft and likely implementing some kind of VLS aboard.
I have included screen captures below, including one I have edited somewhat to try and improve visibility. I will be referring to Vigilance 75 as V-75 and Vigilance 100 as V-100 to keep things concise.
From what I can gather:
- V-100 is named due to its length, being classed as 100m.
- The design is labeled as "Vard 7 100" on close inspection, this is the designation of a currently offered Vard Offshore Patrol Vessel that is also 100m. Given similarities between the designs, I have included a photo rendering of Vard 7 100 below and will be assuming it is the base used for V-100.
- Discernable masts on V-100 vs the waterline exhausts found on V-75, very similar to the type found on AOPS.
- V-100 seems to be using the same sensor and mast arrangement as the smaller V-75 "Flight II" variant we familiar with, meaning NS-100 radar, STIR tracking/illumination radar, Scout Mk3 covert surveillance radar and any other topside sensors from that smaller variant.
- Hull sonar bulb forward does not look present, although the amidships of the design is obscured.
- V-100 adds a 57mm gun vs the 40mm gun from V-75.
- There is no easily discernible VLS present however, there is ample space behind the 57mm gun to potentially fit such a system vs V-75 and Vard 7 100. There may be a slightly raised area that is VLS behind the 57mm gun but this is very much pixel hunting. There is also a block section amidships directly behind the main mast, this could be ExLS launchers for CAMM as was previously fitted to the River class and V-75.
- V-100 shares the MASS launchers alongside the main gun, same as V-75.
- Remote weapons systems present on the port and starboard sides, present directly behind the main mast, unknown caliber but potentially .50 caliber, 20mm or 30mm.
- V-100 features atleast one covered boat bay on the starboard side, potentially another on the port side.
- V-100 integrates organic helicopter capability versus the drone only hanger/flight deck of V-75. V-100 has fly-co windows facing aft and if Vard 7 100/ the large aft superstructure is any indication, V-100 also features a flight deck/hanger capable of taking a Cyclone/Seahawk sized aircraft.
- Larger flight deck aboard V-100 eats into the sizable aft mission deck of V-75 however, the flight deck is clearly raised and is likely able to take containerized payloads both on the aft deck and below the flight deck. Unable to ship Mark 70 VLS containers, unless potentially on the flight deck.
Vard released a new advertisement in the newest edition of Canadian Defence Review and it featured an updated Vigilance variant alongside the "current" model we've had for over a year. Given how aggressively Vard has pushed Vigilance and how they seem to have a finger on the pulse of the CMMC program, I thought it would be interesting to look into what can be seen in this graphic. Take this with a large dose of salt as this is the first place this new "Vigilance 100" design has been seen to my knowledge, and this is very much a "reading the tea leaves" exercise with a somewhat sketchy graphic. TLDR: Bigger design (either right on or far above the NSS 1,000t light limit) with organic helicopter capability, same sensor suite as previous Vigilance designs, moving away from the previous mission deck aft and likely implementing some kind of VLS aboard.
Thanks, Rainbow1910. I see that Vard Marine is in Vancouver, and is owned by Fincantieri of Italy. Their advertised Vigilance 100 design looks interesting. Its length is within the Halifax dock constraint, and (just) within Captain Graham's preference. The illustration shows a pad with an SH-60 Seahawk (not used by Canada), but presumably a CH-148 or CH-149 helicopter could also fit. No hangar is visible.
For comparison with a similar-sized high seas warship, the US Navy's Dealey-class destroyer escorts were 96m overall length x 11.2m beam x 3.6m draft, with 20,000hp on one shaft for 27 knots, and a crew of 173. A Dealey's light displacement was a bit over 1300 long tons.
The Canadian Multi-Mission Corvette program that Captain Graham is directing asks for "a capable warship, part of the order of battle", which, for example, H_K's aluminum OPVs with their emphasis on deploying rigid inflatable boats don't seem to embody. If Vard's Vigilance 100 could fit in a handful of 1.5-ton SM-3 Standard vertical-launch missiles somewhere, then this design could fulfill the demanding ambition to "engage ballistic missile threats and potentially hostile satellites" over Canada, given datalinks to shore.
Despite its obvious virtues, a Vigilance 100 or similar ship would be substantially heavier than the current 1000-tonne political restriction.
The illustration shows a pad with an SH-60 Seahawk (not used by Canada), but presumably a CH-148 or CH-149 helicopter could also fit. No hangar is visible.
I put forward the fact that I think the V-100 designs features an organic helicopter capability due to the fact it looks like there is a flight control area looking aft over the flight deck. I am open to being corrected but as far as I know, vessels that are only equipped to "lillypad" helicopters, especially of this size, typically do not feature these facilities. As for the hanger, the original Vard 7 100 design does feature it and the extended aft superstructure on V-100 does make me lean towards this design also featuring one.
The Canadian Multi-Mission Corvette program that Captain Graham is directing asks for "a capable warship, part of the order of battle", which, for example, H_K's aluminum OPVs with their emphasis on deploying rigid inflatable boats don't seem to embody. If Vard's Vigilance 100 could fit in a handful of 1.5-ton SM-3 Standard vertical-launch missiles somewhere, then this design could fulfill the demanding ambition to "engage ballistic missile threats and potentially hostile satellites" over Canada, given datalinks to shore.
Despite its obvious virtues, a Vigilance 100 or similar ship would be substantially heavier than the current 1000-tonne political restriction.
These may have some kind of VLS forward behind the gun but as I said, it is very difficult to tell. The absent space seems to indicate this though. Strike length cells to fit SM-3 or any similar size missiles might be a bit of an ask but given the mission deck being, it seems to indicate missiles can be carried in another manner.
@Rainbow1910 perhaps they are offering both designs?
Vigilance 75 at ~1,000t light displacement if the RCN insists on building in small shipyards, and
Vigilance 100 to show what you can get with a big design if you build in the big 3 yards
I'm guesstimating Vigilance 100 is >2,000t light / >3,000t full load. Likely even >2,500t light / >3,500t full load... rather big for what is still just a fighty OPV.
The Canadian Multi-Mission Corvette program that Captain Graham is directing asks for "a capable warship, part of the order of battle", which, for example, H_K's aluminum OPVs with their emphasis on deploying rigid inflatable boats don't seem to embody. If Vard's Vigilance 100 could fit in a handful of 1.5-ton SM-3 Standard vertical-launch missiles somewhere, then this design could fulfill the demanding ambition to "engage ballistic missile threats and potentially hostile satellites" over Canada, given datalinks to shore.
Objection your honor. What I was suggesting are patrol corvettes (aka "fighty OPVs"). Fassmer 70 or Gowind 85 being no different from the Vigilance 75 or 100 shown above, i.e. typically steel hulls / aluminum superstructures, main gun, 3D radar, flight deck (hangar optional), RHIBs, and containers. All should be able to carry big missiles in MK70 containers or Mk41 VLS and conduct a mix of typical peacetime missions including the ABMD mission specified by the RCN, ASW patrols, VBSS etc - which would also extend their usefulness into wartime scenarios or medium threat theatres like the Red Sea.
Obviously Fassmer 70 / Vigilance 75 / Gowind 85 can be directly compared, while this new Vigilance 100 is in a separate size category closer to the USCG OPCs or Dutch Holland class OPVs, and bigger than the Spanish BAMs or French Floreals.
Once you're up to the Vard 7 100, why not go to the proven Vard 7 110, otherwise known as the USCG Heritage Class? Why not opt for the Norwegian Coast Guard's 10,000 ton Jan Mayen class OPV?
The real problem is mission creep. What started as a simple, common sense Kingston class replacement is escalating into a remote SM-3 platform for NORAD. The Kingston class is about the same size and speed as a steel hulled WWII ocean minesweeper. They never functioned in the intended MCM role so they are essentially training platforms that are barely able to keep up with some modern trawlers. The odds are that the last of the Kingston class will be retired a full decade before the first "corvette" replacement is in service.
If the Canadian navy truly needs to host VLS cells for NORAD, along with all of the other requirements, only a huge Jan Mayen offers the space and weight margins along with the endurance and ice strengthened hull. On the other hand, if an austere Kingston class replacement is truly needed before 2035 to 2040, it would make more sense to build an existing design overseas than to fool around with dormant shipyards.
...These may have some kind of VLS forward behind the gun but as I said, it is very difficult to tell. The absent space seems to indicate this though. Strike length cells to fit SM-3 or any similar size missiles might be a bit of an ask but given the mission deck being, it seems to indicate missiles can be carried in another manner.
...What I was suggesting are patrol corvettes (aka "fighty OPVs"). Fassmer 70 or Gowind 85 being no different from the Vigilance 75 or 100 shown above, i.e. typically steel hulls / aluminum superstructures, main gun, 3D radar, flight deck (hangar optional), RHIBs, and containers. All should be able to carry big missiles in MK70 containers or Mk41 VLS and conduct a mix of typical peacetime missions including the ABMD mission specified by the RCN, ASW patrols, VBSS etc - which would also extend their usefulness into wartime scenarios or medium threat theatres like the Red Sea.
Obviously Fassmer 70 / Vigilance 75 / Gowind 85 can be directly compared, while this new Vigilance 100 is in a separate size category closer to the USCG OPCs or Dutch Holland class OPVs, and bigger than the Spanish BAMs or French Floreals.
Once you're up to the Vard 7 100, why not go to the proven Vard 7 110, otherwise known as the USCG Heritage Class? Why not opt for the Norwegian Coast Guard's 10,000 ton Jan Mayen class OPV?
The real problem is mission creep. What started as a simple, common sense Kingston class replacement is escalating into a remote SM-3 platform for NORAD. The Kingston class is about the same size and speed as a steel hulled WWII ocean minesweeper. They never functioned in the intended MCM role so they are essentially training platforms that are barely able to keep up with some modern trawlers. The odds are that the last of the Kingston class will be retired a full decade before the first "corvette" replacement is in service.
If the Canadian navy truly needs to host VLS cells for NORAD, along with all of the other requirements, only a huge Jan Mayen offers the space and weight margins along with the endurance and ice strengthened hull. On the other hand, if an austere Kingston class replacement is truly needed before 2035 to 2040, it would make more sense to build an existing design overseas than to fool around with dormant shipyards.
A modest-sized ship whose main job is deploying rigid inflatable boats for inspections, yet which can also blow away an incoming North Korean ICBM if needed—how can this evade the familiar mistake of "trying to do too much with one design"?
Canada, with the world's longest coastline and seventh-largest EEZ, certainly needs the fisheries protection, law enforcement, and border patrol/anti-smuggling roles, and there will be no other ships for those roles on the east and west coasts after the Kingstons are retired at the end of this decade. (Canadian Coast Guard vessels and helicopters can put eyes on a problem, but their crews have no police powers and are unarmed.) An inexpensive constabulary design suitable for such roles can, during wartime, serve in one of the less demanding combat duties, like minesweeping, or coastal ASW escort. This was more-or-less the idea of the Kingston class.
Captain Graham specifically said in his recent video presentation that he wants the new Canadian Multi-Mission Corvette to be much more than a Kingston. A "capable warship, part of the order of battle" means greater-than-OPV speed and, at barest minimum, self-defense against a few incoming strike aircraft or anti-ship missiles. Apples to oranges, in capability and expense. And I am skeptical of the "well, the rigid inflatable boat can be swapped out for an underwater autonomous vehicle during wartime, and this module swapped for that module" belief. How could the ship's crew keep up their training to retain fighting expertise? And see post #63 above about the USN's satisfaction with their "multi-mission" Littoral combat ships and their swappable modules.
The low-end constabulary roles are necessary to have a nation at all, and with no other ships in prospect, and the continued impracticality of putting a quart in a pint pot, maybe it's the highest-end roles that, regretfully, will have to be deleted from the CMC. Move the desired SM-3 Standard missiles and anti-ICBM, anti-satellite capability to the much bigger River-class destroyers.
It does seem like if Canada had the budget, the many goals of the CMC program would naturally split into two classes: an inexpensive 1000t constabulary OPV for coastal work, speedier than a Kingston, with a VTOL drone and rigid inflatable boat but with minimal anti-aircraft/anti-missile/anti-submarine/electronic warfare capability. And a 2000t blue-water mini-frigate, approximately the size of Fletcher-class or Battle-class destroyers of WW2, with a hangared CH-148 or -149 and able to pull its weight in, and keep up with, task groups. (SM-2 Standard missiles might still be too ambitious for the latter.)
A modest-sized ship whose main job is deploying rigid inflatable boats for inspections, yet which can also blow away an incoming North Korean ICBM if needed—how can this evade the familiar mistake of "trying to do too much with one design"?
You are mischaracterizing both what is needed for the ABMD shooter mission and what I am proposing.
All the basic mission requires is 2x 40ft Mk 70 containers. The USN is looking at fitting double that on much smaller MUSVs derived from fast crew supply vessels, so obviously a « modest » size is not necessarily the issue.
The real issue is that the RCN appears to want a broader set of capabilities than the USN, not a single mission missile truck. Hence its choice of words « multi mission corvette », « capable warship » etc. This is actually very sensible IMHO, but also drives up size so it all depends what else they want to throw into the requirements.
The 1,000t (lightship) patrol corvette I’ve sketched out is NOT designed mainly around RHIBs and inspection missions. It would be designed mainly around the 2x Mk 70 launchers which are its main mission payload, with also a minimum level of blue water capability (seakeeping and range). It just happens that this size of platform is also big enough and would have deck space remaining to carry other payloads to expand its utility. I’m proposing that the 2 Mk70s would go amidships between the funnels, leaving the stern area free for payloads like additional 20ft containers, RHIBs, and/or a flight deck etc.
It does seem like if Canada had the budget, the many goals of the CMC program would naturally split into two classes: an inexpensive 1000t constabulary OPV for coastal work, speedier than a Kingston, with a VTOL drone and rigid inflatable boat but with minimal anti-aircraft/anti-missile/anti-submarine/electronic warfare capability. And a 2000t blue-water mini-frigate, approximately the size of Fletcher-class or Battle-class destroyers of WW2, with a hangared CH-148 or -149 and able to pull its weight in, and keep up with, task groups. (SM-2 Standard missiles might still be too ambitious for the latter.)
And I'm still going to disagree with the 1000ton toy, because most of the constabulary OPV missions are best handled by a ship with a full helicopter deck, not just a drone.
Damn near every USCG cutter has a helo pad for that reason. Even the ~1100ton Medium Endurance Cutters have a pad with beartrap (but no hangar).
So yes, this means that the Canadian government also needs to cough up funds for another squadron or two of their big helos, so that these OPVs have helicopters to use. Probably one squadron of CH-148 Cyclone ASW helos and one squadron of CH-149 Cormorant SAR helos.
And I'm still going to disagree with the 1000ton toy, because most of the constabulary OPV missions are best handled by a ship with a full helicopter deck, not just a drone.
Damn near every USCG cutter has a helo pad for that reason. Even the ~1100ton Medium Endurance Cutters have a pad with beartrap (but no hangar).
So yes, this means that the Canadian government also needs to cough up funds for another squadron or two of their big helos, so that these OPVs have helicopters to use. Probably one squadron of CH-148 Cyclone ASW helos and one squadron of CH-149 Cormorant SAR helos.
A dozen more EH-101 or S-92 would be far more expensive than a dozen modest OPVs. Moreover, hanger and flight deck areas are in competition with the 40' Mk70 launchers, not to mention the potential UUVs and USVs. Israel is apparently forgoing the helicopter deck on their new 78 meter corvettes in favor of containerized missile and UAV systems.
Welcome aboard this thread, Mr Warner. I and others are glad to have a Royal Canadian Navy veteran here. When your two Iroquois-class destroyers were rolling 30 degrees, by "working the flight deck" do you indeed mean that a CH-124 Sea King was coming aboard in those conditions, presumably with Beartrap assistance? I am getting seasick just picturing this.
And the Iroquois class was four times the displacement of the proposed Canadian Multi-Mission Corvette. Tough to imagine a CMC landing a CH-148 Cyclone or CH-149 Cormorant in anything above a flat calm, even with the more aerodynamic ship features that you mention.
When I say "working the flight deck" I mean rolling helicopters in and out of the hangar, hot refuels with rotors turning, attaching messenger cables for the Bear Trap Haul-Down system, attaching chains, etc. During non-flying hours I was often elbow-deep in grease, replacing engines, replacing rotor blade(s), controlling corrosion, etc.
A dozen more EH-101 or S-92 would be far more expensive than a dozen modest OPVs. Moreover, hanger and flight deck areas are in competition with the 40' Mk70 launchers, not to mention the potential UUVs and USVs. Israel is apparently forgoing the helicopter deck on their new 78 meter corvettes in favor of containerized missile and UAV systems.
Adding below an updated comparison of several patrol / corvette designs in the 1,000 - 2,000 ton range. These bracket the ~1,000 tonne light displacement limit which appears to be a requirement. I've included 2 modern options (Fassmer OPV 70 and Naval Group 87m Gowind OPV) with a few slight mods of my own to illustrate what could be achievable within this tonnage limit.
To continue on the topic of 1,000 tonne (lightship) corvette options, I found some very interesting info on Vosper's corvette designs.
First off is a 84-85m, 1,350 tonne stealth corvette design from Vosper. This appears to be an updated late 90s variant of the Qahir class for Oman. Second, I found a fascinating study with a detailed weight breakdown of the Qahir class, including options on how to stretch this design by up to 25%, which would improve seakeeping, speed and reduce build cost. See this thread for more info: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/euro-frigates.890/#post-760207.
Third, I found some good weight breakdowns for various diesel propulsion options, which is critical as reducing the plant size (and top end speed) is the most effective way to keep lightship displacement under control (the typical plant of a fast 27-30 knot corvette weighs 250-300t for 20-25MW... this can easily be cut in half).
Put all this together and I can offer the following sketch design and detailed weight breakdown for a notional 1,000 tonne lightship corvette that might meet Canadian requirements:
Vosper corvette mod
(With raised & lengthened foredeck to improve seakeeping vs. parent design)
Length: 85m waterline, 92m overall
Displacement: ~1,450 tonnes full load
Speed: 23-24 knots
Range: 6,000nm @ 15 knots
Main missions:
- ABMD defense with 2x Mk 70 VLS (8 cells - in red below)
- ASW patrol with containerized towed array sonar and torpedo launchers
- Escort/interdiction with 57mm gun, CAAM surface to air missiles, UAVs, RHIBs etc
- Coast guard/SAR support with flight deck to refuel AW101/CH149 helicopter
- Additional missions possible with modular mission bay for 4x 20ft containers, RHIBs or 8x SSMs
Weight breakdown
540 t structural (500t steel hull + 40t lightweight aluminium/composite superstructure)
125 t propulsion (2x 4.4MW MAN 175D or MTU 20V 4000 high speed diesels)
60 t electrical plant (3x 500 kWe diesel generators)
35 t C3 (command, control & comms)
85 t auxiliary systems (HVAC, fuel, water treatment etc)
140 t outfit & furnishing
10 t armament (57mm main gun) = 995 t lightship
+ 450 t loads (diesel fuel, JP5, Flume anti-roll tank, crew, food, containerized payloads etc) = ~1,450 t full load
When I say "working the flight deck" I mean rolling helicopters in and out of the hangar, hot refuels with rotors turning, attaching messenger cables for the Bear Trap Haul-Down system, attaching chains, etc. During non-flying hours I was often elbow-deep in grease, replacing engines, replacing rotor blade(s), controlling corrosion, etc.
On 15 February 2025, container ship MSC Baltic III, on its way to Corner Brook, Newfoundland, lost propulsion and was driven against a cliff in heavy weather. Of the Canadian Coast Guard, Pierre Radisson-class icebreaker Henry Larsen and tender Ann Harvey were on hand to help. An interesting video of a Royal Canadian Air Force CH-149 Cormorant (AW101 Merlin) helicopter of 103 Squadron retrieving the wrecked ship's crew can be seen at <
Both CCG ships have aft flight decks, but if I'm understanding correctly, the CH-149 flew from Gander. I salute the helo crew's airmanship in those conditions.
And I'm still going to disagree with the 1000ton toy, because most of the constabulary OPV missions are best handled by a ship with a full helicopter deck, not just a drone.
Damn near every USCG cutter has a helo pad for that reason. Even the ~1100ton Medium Endurance Cutters have a pad with beartrap (but no hangar).
So yes, this means that the Canadian government also needs to cough up funds for another squadron or two of their big helos, so that these OPVs have helicopters to use. Probably one squadron of CH-148 Cyclone ASW helos and one squadron of CH-149 Cormorant SAR helos.
A dozen more EH-101 or S-92 would be far more expensive than a dozen modest OPVs. Moreover, hanger and flight deck areas are in competition with the 40' Mk70 launchers, not to mention the potential UUVs and USVs. Israel is apparently forgoing the helicopter deck on their new 78 meter corvettes in favor of containerized missile and UAV systems.
Yes, 78m corvettes that operate within helo range of Israeli soil.
While we're talking about an OPV that needs to be bigger due to seakeeping, and is operating way up in the Arctic a long way from most land bases.
The RCAF has received fifteen CH-149 Cormorant (AW101 Merlin) helicopters, of which two have been destroyed in service. I've seen talk about building a few more Cormorants out of the extensive spares that Canada has, including the cancelled VH-71 fleet. The RCAF has received twenty-eight CH-148 Cyclone (Sikorsky H-92) helos, of which one has been destroyed. So a current fleet of forty shipboard-capable helicopters, to land on RCN and CCG ships. (The RCAF also has other models, including some Chinooks.)
No doubt either Sikorsky or AgustaWestland would welcome a fresh order from Canada, but as TinWing points out, a dozen or two new helicopters would be a significant expense. It appears Canada would have been better off both capability-wise and budget-wise had it kept its original 1987 order for forty-eight Merlins, which was cancelled as too expensive.
The Merlin order was cancelled because of a spur of the moment decision in order to gain a couple of points in polling. As to saving money the they didn't save a penny.
Between cancellation fees and the lawsuits plus the cost of running two different competitions for replacement aircraft. And then purchasing a standalone micro fleet of S92s .
I suspect when it's all said and done we're probably looking at 2-3 times the original cost of Merlin purchase in favour of an aircraft that they to cook the specs of the competition in order for it to win.
And if my sources are correct they to rejig the competition at least two times because the Merlin had an annoying habit of winning.
And that does not even begin to cover the costs of modifying the various frigates and destroyers to first take the Merlin and then remodify them to take the Cyclone
The Merlin order was cancelled because of a spur of the moment decision in order to gain a couple of points in polling. As to saving money the they didn't save a penny.
Between cancellation fees and the lawsuits plus the cost of running two different competitions for replacement aircraft. And then purchasing a standalone micro fleet of S92s .
I suspect when it's all said and done we're probably looking at 2-3 times the original cost of Merlin purchase in favour of an aircraft that they to cook the specs of the competition in order for it to win.
And if my sources are correct they to rejig the competition at least two times because the Merlin had an annoying habit of winning.
And that does not even begin to cover the costs of modifying the various frigates and destroyers to first take the Merlin and then remodify them to take the Cyclone
Canada had some major budget issues in 1993 when the big Merlin order was finally cancelled. Looking back, the real mistake was not sticking to that cancellation and buying some sort of standard US Navy spec S70 variants for the navy and perhaps surplus CH-46s for the less vital SAR function. As it turned out, those 15 reduced commercial specification EH101s have been embarrassingly expensive to operate and the long running S-92 saga was an expensive embarrassment. Considering the US State Department use of surplus CH-46s up until at least 2021, the CH-149 Cormorant buy was probably premature and unnecessary. I never exactly understood why a simple S70 derivative wouldn't have sufficed for the Canadian Navy. It's worth remembering that Canada only procured the original Sea Kings for carrier operations and then continued to use them after disposing of the Bonaventure essentially as surplus aboard their surface escorts with the vital development of the innovative Beartrap haul down. A direct replacement was never strictly speaking necessary.
SH 60/ S 70 had tested and failed almost spectacularly. Insufficient range, insufficient endurance. And it failed a safety test involving ditching it at sea.
Canada had some major budget issues in 1993 when the big Merlin order was finally cancelled. Looking back, the real mistake was not sticking to that cancellation and buying some sort of standard US Navy spec S70 variants for the navy and perhaps surplus CH-46s for the less vital SAR function. As it turned out, those 15 reduced commercial specification EH101s have been embarrassingly expensive to operate and the long running S-92 saga was an expensive embarrassment. Considering the US State Department use of surplus CH-46s up until at least 2021, the CH-149 Cormorant buy was probably premature and unnecessary. I never exactly understood why a simple S70 derivative wouldn't have sufficed for the Canadian Navy. It's worth remembering that Canada only procured the original Sea Kings for carrier operations and then continued to use them after disposing of the Bonaventure essentially as surplus aboard their surface escorts with the vital development of the innovative Beartrap haul down. A direct replacement was never strictly speaking necessary.
It should be noted that until the SH 60 came along US escorts used their helicopters as simple weapons carriers. Much like the British WASP.
The RCN viewed the SeaKing an extension of the ships sensors as well as a weapons carrier. It not only aided Destroyers or Frigates but was a hunter in it own right.
A dozen more EH-101 or S-92 would be far more expensive than a dozen modest OPVs. Moreover, hanger and flight deck areas are in competition with the 40' Mk70 launchers, not to mention the potential UUVs and USVs. Israel is apparently forgoing the helicopter deck on their new 78 meter corvettes in favor of containerized missile and UAV systems.
A dozen more CH 148 are very unlikely have paid a great deal for very little in return either in numbers or operational capabilities.
On the other hand politics and reality have very little to do with one another when it comes to Canadian military procurement.
So anything is possible... *Sigh*
I keep wondering how the RCN would have developed had we built the Merlins or rather the our variant of it .
I mean the City Class had pretty much designed around a helo with the Merlin's capabilities. Ironically it's now finally getting a modern aircraft that while it does have a lot of the capabilities that the Airforce and the Navy were looking for .
So many questions,so many possibilities.
There is no mention of special Arctic features (ice-strengthened hull, insulated accommodations, etc.) in the otherwise-detailed video presentation of Captain Graham, the director of the Canadian Multi-Mission Corvette program. I queried Captain Graham about this matter a month ago, using his public email address as listed in the presentation, but he didn't respond. (I am after all a foreigner.) I'm interested in Canada's defense of its unpopulated northern regions, and in general, I think it would be wise to give all RCN and CCG ships at least moderate Arctic capability (i.e. a Polar Class rating), and to exercise that capability from time to time. But Scott Kenny, as we saw H_K thinks it unlikely that anything serious could fit into a design of 1.0 or 1.1 kt light displacement.
Apophenia mentioned earlier that the Kingston class has "proven surprisingly useful in relatively ice-free Arctic waters" during summers. Maybe real Arctic capability is another of those good-things-to-have that must be left off the Canadian Multi-Mission Corvette, due to Ottawa's weight constraint.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
