Monitoring and repairing seabed infrastructure might evolve into a Coast Guard task. With all the talk of changing up the CCG's role and mission- this seems like something that could fit. Might be easier to attract technical specialists for that work into a civilian organization too. Obviously the 'warfare' part of seabed warfare would be the RCN's domain. I'm no expert in it, maybe it's too inefficient to have the kenetic action and the monitoring/repair parts of the mission split between two different organizations, but I think it's worth a thought.
Everything 'we're' asking of the CMMC just make the CSC seem like such a mistake. Yes, the CSC is the platform we need today based on the age of the fleet. But I can't help but imagine a world where we starting building a direct Iroquois Class replacement (maybe parter with the Australians on the Hobart) in the mid 2010s and were now commencing the build of a more direct Halifax Class replacement. Asking a moderate tonnage ASW frigate to include the high-end capabilities that are now being asked of the CMMC is a lot more reasonable. Then the Kingstons could have a more direct, low cost, replacement.
Anyways, I don't mean to dog the River Class too much. It looks to be a great platform- just that its capability requirements are reflective of past mistakes.
I will disagree that the RCD are a mistake, plus we are building them in Flights of 3's so expect the fitting out of them to change. They and the subs will be the real teeth of the RCN. I am loath to give up the Kingston's completely, so a smaller fleet of corvettes, with a smaller number of MCM's. Mine clearance is not just having the hulls, but the crew trained in the profession and knowledge of the area. The MCM are home ported to protect our most important harbours.
I don't see the need for the RCN to get heavy Icebreakers, if we build two more PC2 icebreakers fit them for both not with sensors and hardpoints for weapon system and then give them to the CCG. I agree with you that cable protection is a good task for the CCG. For the RCN or more properly a expanded Royal Canadian Fleet Auxiliary with, 1-2 ice-strengthen LST's for Northern deployments, 2 sub rescue vessels and a constantly renewing fleet of smaller vessels to support the larger vessels.
Yeah, I think 'mistake' was probably the wrong word to describe the RCDs. Just that a lot of the design and requirements came from the concept of "single class surface combatant". If we're realizing we have to go back to two classes of surface combatants anyways, the capabilities could have been split between the two more efficiently. For the current fleet (without building an AWD replacement a decade ago), the RCD is great.
It's a universal phenomenon - talking solutions before we understand the problem or requirements. You touched on them, but we would need a list of requirements that the Navy thinks a support vessel would need to be able to do then we can speculate about solutions (vessels) that can solve for it.
AOPS are going to do the MCDV jobs far better with way more capability than the McDivs ever did.
But the RCN needs to mainly look at their warfighting focus first which has been clearly spelled out in defence politics and Leadmark 2040. 4 RCD task group with AOR and air dets (UAV and Cyclones). That's the main focus. If we want to add support ships we should add one or two more JSS (so one is always available)
Given the submarine focus sub tenders (ice breaking for other vessels capable) for the Arctic are not a bad idea.
Those are real support vessels. Give the cable protection job to the coast guard as an expansion of their role.
I truly do not understand the love of "Warships" that have no weapons :-)
AOPV should stick to arctic for sure, so we need something off the shelf, built in a foreign dockyard quickly and at reasonable cost. Given our recruitment pipeline and issues, the base crew for the vessel itself should not exceed that of the Kingston - if possible, and modern automation does make a lot possible. But to quote Neo in the Matrix "Guns... I need more guns....". I don't think CMMC needs to be able to sling containerised Tomahawks or ESSM's, but if its a "patrol ship" then every Navy in the world except the RN and RCN, and a fair few coast guards too, have standardized on a 76mm or 57mm main gun. Once upon a time that might have been to put HE across the bows of a naughty pirate, now we need it to shoot down, or sink drones, for self protection against non-state actors. Can a "modular" CMMC do MCM, ASW and non-arctic ocean patrol - absolutely! Should it do AAW and ASuW.... no, that simple detracts from the Rivers, puts up the cost and crew numbers, and delays the procurement.
Sea bed warfare - well if its mostly monitoring, under sea ISR, to protect submerged critical national infrastructure, shouldn't the Coast Guard be tasked? A CMMC that can deploy UUV's / ROV's for MCM and ASW could of course help out in an emergency, no?
Submarine support, and more importantly, submarine rescue? Buy an off shore support vessel like the UK RFA. Ship is just a platform for the rescue capabilities, doesn't need to be gold plated, but big enough for rescue mini-subs, decompression chambers and sick bay. Heli deck to get the badly injured ashore to better care. Loads of second hand OSV out there that could handle this, and to be honest other OSV's that could handle the sea bed tasks, also like the RFA.
Finally, Navy icebreakers??? To your point, only worth it if its that big ol Davie joint support ship type thing that can carry a lot of stuff, including multiple helo's up north.....?
Bottom line, do CMMC now, off the shelf ASAP, cheap as we can get, with deck space for MCM and ASW kit, or extra RHIBS, depending on the day of the week - but at least a 57mm, 2 x 30mm and some "MANPADS" type missiles, because is NAVY asset, and we already have completely unarmed coast guard!
On the face of it, the navy owning one doesn't make sense, for the many reasons noted by Noah and the other commentators. So, maybe its something from left-field we're not thinking of, or is that giving DND too much credit?
The most reasonable rationale for an RCN icebreaker would be an assessed need for a persistent, year-round physical naval surface presence in the Arctic. Perhaps it could be considered as an alternative to the construction of a fixed base, possibly for long-range sensors and/or missile defence?
Responding more directly to Noah's great piece on Support Fleet. I agree the new subs will need a specialized hull for support and to leverage their capabilities - plus new unique capabilities. I'm thinking 2-3 ships are needed as we have 3 coasts with 3-4+ oceans to cover and at least one ship needs to be operational at all the times for multiple operational roles & emergencies (AIP Consumables Resupply, Spare Parts & Torpedo Replenishment, Crew Rotation & Medical & Rescue, Communications Relay, UUV/ISR Integration-seafloor warfare, Special Ops Staging, Arctic Navigation Aid, Submarine Tender Function, Multi-Mission Reconfiguration). Further, we need to be in the Arctic so these ships need to be ice-capable - PC 4/5.
I really like the Davie MRNSV, due to its superior Arctic suitability, flexibility, and long-term cost-efficiency in fulfilling multiple roles with a single platform. The MRNSV is purpose-built for exactly the missions required – it has the station-keeping precision, heavy lift gear, and endurance to excel in seabed warfare tasks (UUV/ROV operations, cable and infrastructure protection, submarine rescue) even in harsh Arctic conditions. Its enormous modular capacity means it can serve as a truly multi-purpose asset – from submarine tender to undersea surveillance ship, from Arctic resupply vessel to search and rescue platform, reducing the need for separate specialized ships
While its upfront cost is higher, Canada would get a capability-dense platform that maximizes utility of each hull. Operating a fleet of three MRNSVs would allow one on each coast and one in refit/training, or rotating deployments in the Arctic, with confidence that each can independently handle the full spectrum of tasks (ice, seabed ops, logistics). This redundancy and capability make it the most future-proof option. Crucially, the MRNSV leverages domestic shipbuilding - completing it at Davie boosts Canadian industry and aligns with strategic objectives. The existing partially-built hull shortens time to first delivery, meaning Canada could field an initial capability sooner than waiting for all-new designs to be realized. Integration with Canadian systems is straightforward, as demonstrated by Davie’s successful conversion of MV Asterix as an interim supply ship. Additionally, the MRNSV’s inclusion of submarine rescue capacity is a unique life-saving insurance for RCN submarine crews that none of the smaller designs inherently provide.
Navy Icebreaker maybe a simple attempt to respond to the Russian's Project 23350 "combat icebreakers" @approx 8,000 tons and sporting up to eight Kalibr-type cruise missiles or Kh-35 anti-ship missiles in addition to a 76.2mm naval gun?
I agree the emphasis on Navy icebreakers is a head scratcher. I suspect it's because with all the concern about protecting the Arctic, it's a concept that campaigning politicians know will resonate with the public. Shows their patriotic bona fides and such. Promising these more obscure (but more needed) specialized types of vessels would go over the heads of most Canadians who have only a superficial understanding of our defence needs, if that.
Monitoring and repairing seabed infrastructure might evolve into a Coast Guard task. With all the talk of changing up the CCG's role and mission- this seems like something that could fit. Might be easier to attract technical specialists for that work into a civilian organization too. Obviously the 'warfare' part of seabed warfare would be the RCN's domain. I'm no expert in it, maybe it's too inefficient to have the kenetic action and the monitoring/repair parts of the mission split between two different organizations, but I think it's worth a thought.
Everything 'we're' asking of the CMMC just make the CSC seem like such a mistake. Yes, the CSC is the platform we need today based on the age of the fleet. But I can't help but imagine a world where we starting building a direct Iroquois Class replacement (maybe parter with the Australians on the Hobart) in the mid 2010s and were now commencing the build of a more direct Halifax Class replacement. Asking a moderate tonnage ASW frigate to include the high-end capabilities that are now being asked of the CMMC is a lot more reasonable. Then the Kingstons could have a more direct, low cost, replacement.
Anyways, I don't mean to dog the River Class too much. It looks to be a great platform- just that its capability requirements are reflective of past mistakes.
I will disagree that the RCD are a mistake, plus we are building them in Flights of 3's so expect the fitting out of them to change. They and the subs will be the real teeth of the RCN. I am loath to give up the Kingston's completely, so a smaller fleet of corvettes, with a smaller number of MCM's. Mine clearance is not just having the hulls, but the crew trained in the profession and knowledge of the area. The MCM are home ported to protect our most important harbours.
I don't see the need for the RCN to get heavy Icebreakers, if we build two more PC2 icebreakers fit them for both not with sensors and hardpoints for weapon system and then give them to the CCG. I agree with you that cable protection is a good task for the CCG. For the RCN or more properly a expanded Royal Canadian Fleet Auxiliary with, 1-2 ice-strengthen LST's for Northern deployments, 2 sub rescue vessels and a constantly renewing fleet of smaller vessels to support the larger vessels.
Yeah, I think 'mistake' was probably the wrong word to describe the RCDs. Just that a lot of the design and requirements came from the concept of "single class surface combatant". If we're realizing we have to go back to two classes of surface combatants anyways, the capabilities could have been split between the two more efficiently. For the current fleet (without building an AWD replacement a decade ago), the RCD is great.
It's a universal phenomenon - talking solutions before we understand the problem or requirements. You touched on them, but we would need a list of requirements that the Navy thinks a support vessel would need to be able to do then we can speculate about solutions (vessels) that can solve for it.
I agree. The term support vessel is very broad.
AOPS are going to do the MCDV jobs far better with way more capability than the McDivs ever did.
But the RCN needs to mainly look at their warfighting focus first which has been clearly spelled out in defence politics and Leadmark 2040. 4 RCD task group with AOR and air dets (UAV and Cyclones). That's the main focus. If we want to add support ships we should add one or two more JSS (so one is always available)
Given the submarine focus sub tenders (ice breaking for other vessels capable) for the Arctic are not a bad idea.
Those are real support vessels. Give the cable protection job to the coast guard as an expansion of their role.
I truly do not understand the love of "Warships" that have no weapons :-)
AOPV should stick to arctic for sure, so we need something off the shelf, built in a foreign dockyard quickly and at reasonable cost. Given our recruitment pipeline and issues, the base crew for the vessel itself should not exceed that of the Kingston - if possible, and modern automation does make a lot possible. But to quote Neo in the Matrix "Guns... I need more guns....". I don't think CMMC needs to be able to sling containerised Tomahawks or ESSM's, but if its a "patrol ship" then every Navy in the world except the RN and RCN, and a fair few coast guards too, have standardized on a 76mm or 57mm main gun. Once upon a time that might have been to put HE across the bows of a naughty pirate, now we need it to shoot down, or sink drones, for self protection against non-state actors. Can a "modular" CMMC do MCM, ASW and non-arctic ocean patrol - absolutely! Should it do AAW and ASuW.... no, that simple detracts from the Rivers, puts up the cost and crew numbers, and delays the procurement.
Sea bed warfare - well if its mostly monitoring, under sea ISR, to protect submerged critical national infrastructure, shouldn't the Coast Guard be tasked? A CMMC that can deploy UUV's / ROV's for MCM and ASW could of course help out in an emergency, no?
Submarine support, and more importantly, submarine rescue? Buy an off shore support vessel like the UK RFA. Ship is just a platform for the rescue capabilities, doesn't need to be gold plated, but big enough for rescue mini-subs, decompression chambers and sick bay. Heli deck to get the badly injured ashore to better care. Loads of second hand OSV out there that could handle this, and to be honest other OSV's that could handle the sea bed tasks, also like the RFA.
Finally, Navy icebreakers??? To your point, only worth it if its that big ol Davie joint support ship type thing that can carry a lot of stuff, including multiple helo's up north.....?
Bottom line, do CMMC now, off the shelf ASAP, cheap as we can get, with deck space for MCM and ASW kit, or extra RHIBS, depending on the day of the week - but at least a 57mm, 2 x 30mm and some "MANPADS" type missiles, because is NAVY asset, and we already have completely unarmed coast guard!
On the face of it, the navy owning one doesn't make sense, for the many reasons noted by Noah and the other commentators. So, maybe its something from left-field we're not thinking of, or is that giving DND too much credit?
The most reasonable rationale for an RCN icebreaker would be an assessed need for a persistent, year-round physical naval surface presence in the Arctic. Perhaps it could be considered as an alternative to the construction of a fixed base, possibly for long-range sensors and/or missile defence?
Responding more directly to Noah's great piece on Support Fleet. I agree the new subs will need a specialized hull for support and to leverage their capabilities - plus new unique capabilities. I'm thinking 2-3 ships are needed as we have 3 coasts with 3-4+ oceans to cover and at least one ship needs to be operational at all the times for multiple operational roles & emergencies (AIP Consumables Resupply, Spare Parts & Torpedo Replenishment, Crew Rotation & Medical & Rescue, Communications Relay, UUV/ISR Integration-seafloor warfare, Special Ops Staging, Arctic Navigation Aid, Submarine Tender Function, Multi-Mission Reconfiguration). Further, we need to be in the Arctic so these ships need to be ice-capable - PC 4/5.
I really like the Davie MRNSV, due to its superior Arctic suitability, flexibility, and long-term cost-efficiency in fulfilling multiple roles with a single platform. The MRNSV is purpose-built for exactly the missions required – it has the station-keeping precision, heavy lift gear, and endurance to excel in seabed warfare tasks (UUV/ROV operations, cable and infrastructure protection, submarine rescue) even in harsh Arctic conditions. Its enormous modular capacity means it can serve as a truly multi-purpose asset – from submarine tender to undersea surveillance ship, from Arctic resupply vessel to search and rescue platform, reducing the need for separate specialized ships
While its upfront cost is higher, Canada would get a capability-dense platform that maximizes utility of each hull. Operating a fleet of three MRNSVs would allow one on each coast and one in refit/training, or rotating deployments in the Arctic, with confidence that each can independently handle the full spectrum of tasks (ice, seabed ops, logistics). This redundancy and capability make it the most future-proof option. Crucially, the MRNSV leverages domestic shipbuilding - completing it at Davie boosts Canadian industry and aligns with strategic objectives. The existing partially-built hull shortens time to first delivery, meaning Canada could field an initial capability sooner than waiting for all-new designs to be realized. Integration with Canadian systems is straightforward, as demonstrated by Davie’s successful conversion of MV Asterix as an interim supply ship. Additionally, the MRNSV’s inclusion of submarine rescue capacity is a unique life-saving insurance for RCN submarine crews that none of the smaller designs inherently provide.
Navy Icebreaker maybe a simple attempt to respond to the Russian's Project 23350 "combat icebreakers" @approx 8,000 tons and sporting up to eight Kalibr-type cruise missiles or Kh-35 anti-ship missiles in addition to a 76.2mm naval gun?
I agree the emphasis on Navy icebreakers is a head scratcher. I suspect it's because with all the concern about protecting the Arctic, it's a concept that campaigning politicians know will resonate with the public. Shows their patriotic bona fides and such. Promising these more obscure (but more needed) specialized types of vessels would go over the heads of most Canadians who have only a superficial understanding of our defence needs, if that.