By Alex S., 16 June 2024
A few days ago, Vard Marine led Team Vigilance posted an updated version of their pitch for the (yet to be funded) Kingston-class replacement project. It appears that they have implemented feedback given to them over the past year, as the proposed Flight II solution provides a major capability increase over their initial offering, and bridges the gap between the Harry DeWolf-class and future Canadian Surface Combatant quite nicely.
The Kingston-class is approaching 30 years of age and will need to be replaced at some point, but the question remains as to whether the government will be willing to add a fourth shipyard (Ontario Shipyards) to the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS).
While not all details regarding the ship have been provided, the publicly available information has been summarized below.
—
Designed for Oceanic Transits:
- Hull designed for enhanced oceanic seakeeping and long range (Esquimalt to Yokosuka direct / Halifax to Sierra Leone direct)
Efficient Hull and Machinery:
- Hull and machinery optimized for efficiency across operating speed range. PTI / PTO used to enhance overall efficiency at lower speeds
Enhanced Crew Comfort:
- Officers and Senior NCMs in 2-person cabins with ensuite washrooms/showers. Junior NCMs in 4-person cabins. Dedicated leisure and gym facilities, and an all ranks mess
Oversized Ops / Comms Room:
- Ops room designed with future fit and modular payloads in mind. Designed to house operators for all organic and off board systems (UAS, AUV, USV)
Dedicated UAV/UAS Facilities:
- Organic landing, hangar, and maintenance facilities for multiple UAV/UAS
Modular Mission Deck:
- Built-in deck skidding system allows for rapid movement and securing of modules on deck
- Capacity for 4x 40ft or 8x 20ft ISO Containers for general transport or HADR missions
- 2 x 12 m Rigid Hulled Inflatable Boats on Cube™ davit module
- Capacity for containerized ASW modules (ex. CAPTAS-2, Mk 54, decoy launchers, etc.)
- Cube™ launch-and-recovery modules capable of hosting stern survey sensors and ROVs
- Stand-off MCM capability via the Pathmaster System
- Up to 6 Cube™ based Naval Strike Missile (NSM) launchers for hosting a total of 24 missiles for a sustained anti-surface capability
- 3 to 4 Mk 70 Payload Delivery Systems (each system contains four strike length Mk 41 VLS cells)
Main Sensors (Flight II):
- NS-100 4D AESA Radar (250km+ range)
- STIR Tracking & Illumination Radar
- Scout Mk3 Medium Range Covert Surveillance Radar
- Gatekeeper Electro-Optical Security Sensors
- Bluewatch/Bluehunter Hull Mounted Sonar
- Altesse-H Communications Electronics Support Measures / COMINT
- Vigile Mk2 Radar Electronic Support Measures
- Integrated Internal + External Communication System
Modularized Sensors (Flight II):
- CAPTAS-2 Variable Depth Sonar
- Pathmaster Mine Countermeasures USV
Weapons + Countermeasure (Flight II):
- 2x 3-Cell ExLS with 24x CAMM Surface to Air Missiles (25km range)
- 1x Bofors 40 mm Main Gun
- 2x 12.7mm or 20mm Remote Weapons Systems
- 2x Decoy Launching System
Modularized Weapon System (Flight II):
- Containerized Naval Strike Missiles
- Mk 70 Payload Delivery System (Modularized Mk 41 VLS)
- Mk 54 Lightweight Torpedo System
- ASW Decoy Launchers
—
Their interactive 3D viewer can be found in the link below.
Their video can be found in the link below.
—
References:
27 thoughts on “An Updated Kingston-class Replacement Pitch”
Great news! This new iteration of the Vigilant concept is a further step in the right direction.
The RCN needs a replacement for the Kingston class, which (in my opinion) should be deployable in an increasingly insecure environment, incorporating lessons learnt from the Ukraine war on vulnerability to threats such as loitering munitions, aerial and sea suicide drones or fast attack crafts. I particularly celebrate the introduction of MASS (Multi Ammunition Softkill System) as in the CPF and CAMM missiles as in the CSC even though a patrol vessel is supposed not to be in a high-intensity conflict area. On the other hand, the new OPV should also be capable to perform mine counter measures as its predecessor. The proposed and varied payloads constitute a magnificent tool-box, including MCM. Would the Vigilant include a degaussing system?
Nevertheless, my concern is that a great part of the success of the MCDV relies on the limited number of their crew: about 37 (regular) and space for up to a complement of 47. How many sailors and officers should be added to deal with the increased number of sensors? 4D AESA Radar, Tracking & illumination radar, covert surveillance radar, hull mounted sonar, COMINT, etc. are all welcome but, what is the trade-off in terms of manning? By the way, the “all ranks mess” has proved to be very much valued on the AOPS, good point! I hope that the regular crew will still sit below 45-50 staff, with a maximum complement of up to 60-65. I would really like someone to let us know more details on this.
That being said, I dare to make four suggestions to the design.
First, while I agree to keep the hangar just for UAVs, I would design the heli-pad for landing helicopters of up to 5-7 tons, such as the Griffons or the Wildcats (AW159), these ones being used by the Royal Navy but also by the Philippine and South Korean navies. Of course, upgrading up to the size of 10-12 tons helicopter would be much better, allowing interoperability with most NATO allies (SH-60 Seahawk and NH-90 NFH). However, this change would imply even more demanding trade-offs with structural design than my proposal.
Secondly, I miss a second RHIB, organic. Actually, Vard delivered to the RNZN (New Zealand) the Protector-class ships (series 7, 085, #1) with two such boats, from which the Vigilant might derive or learn. Yet the displacement stays below 2,000 tonnes.
Third, I also miss one (or two) built-in cranes, be it 20 & 3 tonnes as in AOPS, or one 16 ton crane as in the above-mentioned Protector-class. Cranes offer an interesting punch of flexibility, especially in HA/DR duties when port facilities are scarce. It would also free space and weight in the CubeTM modules, and the need to use different crane types depending on the payload modules.
Finally, as for the main gun (Bofors 40mm), I would note that the RCN would have to manage three different calibers: 25mm (AOPS), 30mm (CSC) and 40mm (OPV). Again, I would suggest to replace it with a Bofors 57mm (#2). This gun and its different available munitions offer better protection against drone threats and fast attack crafts. Should it be rejected, I would propose using the same 30mm gun as in the CSC, for commonality. Note also that the 57mm gun is not only used in the Halifax frigates (option to reutilize them?), but the main gun selected for the British Type 31, the USN LCS and Constellation-class frigates. This would ease overseas resupply from allies when needed.
#1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector-class_offshore_patrol_vessel) ,
https://vardmarine.com/gallery/vard-7-085/
#2 https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-the-bofors-57mm-mk-3-gun-that-will-equip-the-type-31-frigates/
So some things to keep in mind. The Canadian multi mission Corvette project was stood up with a reduced amount of personnel as there isn’t enough staff to go around with other projects in progress. They are in the early stages of the definition stage to determine what they need the class to do. The class is not funded and not in the strategic plan for the RCN as of yet. I do know that these ships will be obviously bigger than a Kingston Class, a small caliber naval gun, hangar for drones, modular payloads, speed of 25 kts, globally deployable.
Vard is most likely trying to position itself as a contender by designing different versions in case there is a cut in the amount of CSC’s and use these as a bridge and cheaper option to the 15 CSC’s which is something I wouldn’t want to see at all if it meant less ships.
You are right in part that the Kingston Class success is the small crew requirement. 41 internal bunks, 47 if you count the 20ft accommodation payload. You only need 36 to operate it safely. The other reasons why the class was so successful was the low operating cost and lost maintenance costs. You won’t be getting anything like that with what Vard is offering. As soon as you add missiles, 3D radar the costs will skyrocket and why it won’t be a Kingston Class replacement any longer. If the government determines that they want a heavily armed Corvette then build it and a separate low cost, low crewing requirements, low operating cost MCM ship that can double as a patrol ship using civilian standards.
Hi Ted. Agree with most of what you have said. Having these Tier 3 OPVs seems to be a “positioning” effort by Vard Marine only. They seem to be putting the cart-before-the-horse with this effort. What Vard Marine should be doing is wait to see what the Canadian Multi-Mission Corvette Project comes up with for a Kingston class replacement during the Definition Phase with regard to the capabilities it wants this OPV to accomplish for the RCN’s required missions and then design the Vigilance class around those requirements. I also agree that a heavy marine helicopter is not required but UAVs/USVs/UUVs would be what this vessel needs more than the ability to ‘land’ a Cyclone helo. Canada must first get its own house in order and increase its personnel retention ratio within the Navy so that we are able to man these the Vigilance class for whatever mission the government will require for the class. With what Vard is suggesting for Batch II OPVs especially, that means many more $$ (Billions more) to come up with for this class. We are not trying to create Mini-CSCs here but a class that can augment the CSC Frigates for the future. I don’t think Vard Marine gets that…..yet.
Any replacement class will have a hangar and flightdeck of sorts for drones, that’s a given. As for your comment that the purpose of these ships is to augment the CSC you may be disappointed. They certainly may operate at times with a CSC just like the Kingston Class did at times. They will be used much the same as the UK River Class and able to globally deploy on their own and fulfill our NATO MCM obligations, deploy to the Arctic, OP Caribe, etc., etc., as a Kingston Class replacement should. Now it’s just a matter of seeing how complicated and expensive they’ll make the class.
Hello J. Cañadas,
This proposal is clearly reflecting some kind of want or need provided by the RCN to industry, or industry reacting to hearsay from the RCN. It seems fairly clear by the in-built armament alongside the payload options that this proposals is putting forward a design that can stand in as a combatant in certain situations alongside providing a robust self protection capability. The options put aboard especially for items like Mark 41 containerized VLS are likely to be used as a way to enlarge the magazines of the CSC from an offboard platform.
As Vigilance is a multi-role vessel, I would not expect a degaussing system aboard. Modern minesweeping is done from afar with unmanned systems, reducing the requirements for degaussing and traditional other minesweeper traits.
If the RCN wants something with more combat capability, it is inevitable that they will require additional crew aboard to operate the required systems. That is a tradeoff that must be made if they desire the additional capabilities.
A larger helicopter pad will fundamentally require a larger vessel or will require the key multi-mission deck aft to be cut down. Neither of these options (loss in multi-mission capability or increased size/complexity/cost) is worth the capability gained to land helicopters that the RCN does not operate or reasonably work alongside on a regular basis. Keep the flight deck for UAV’s only, anything else will require uncomfortable changes to the design.
The Protector-class ships have more boats organically due to the fact they are often required to operate by themselves in poor conditions, alongside the fact they entirely lack anything approaching the multi-mission bay seen on the Vigilance proposal. Another boat aboard organically will require a rework of the ship’s upper works and likely enlargement, something that will cut into the viability of the vessel in its current state. As things sit now, you can have additional boat capability aboard through the multi-mission deck when required.
It is not plausible to have cranes of the same pedigree from the AOPS or other types of vessels aboard this as their additional weight and space required are not worth the capability provided. If one wants organic onload and offload capability, you will need to enlarge the ship to fit such equipment. Again, the Protecteur-class ships lack a mission deck of anywhere near the size and versatility than the Vigilance and seemingly exist to largely deal with small boats and other smaller supplies. Crane types come with the modules themselves or the port infrastructure required to change payloads can easily adapt to deal with the modules.
Logistics are not incredibly important regarding these guns as the RCN already can share stocks of barrels and ammunition with the Army for the 25mm alongside basically all of their allies. By the time this program to replace the Kingstons gets underway, the Halifax class are likely to be well on their way out of service, therefore interoperability with that platform is not especially relevant. The 57mm gun is significantly heavier than the 40mm gun at 6,800kg for the former vs 2,300kg for the latter, this is important aboard a smaller vessel that likely lacks and internal magazine. For the roles required, the additional capability is not likely worth the weight of the larger gun/mount. The 40mm is still a fair bit more effective as a main gun than the 30mm Lionfish, so I can see why they’ve gone with it.
The Vigilance class would certainly have a degaussing system as the Kingston Class during OP Reassurance has placed a great emphasis on its operation despite being often outside the MDA.
Thanks for your comments, especially to Jimmy. IMO this proposal may respond to RCN exploratory demands or to Vard Marine making their pitch and positioning, probably something in between. We are obviously in the realm of the hypothesis, giving our thoughts to this project iteration. There is still a long way to final requirements and those will be set by the RCN, cristal clear.
Tradeoffs have to be made for increased capabilities, for sure. I was wondering in how much would the crew increase for this particular Vigilance iteration in reference to the Kingstons. Would the full complement extend beyond 50, 60 staff?
As for the helicopter pad, I still think that the possibility to host manned helicopters such as the Griffons may be useful at some point for medical evacuation and SAR. Constabulary duties such as counter-terrorism, counter-piracy and anti-smuggling operations along with allied navies may also benefit from it. I am not sure which is Vard’s reference model for the Vigilance, maybe it is Vard 7 085 (see NZ Otago-class). It should not be a great issue to use instead Vard 7 095 for the design, nearly 10m longer, in line with the length of British River-class batch 2 which, by the way, may host a much heavier AW101 Merlin helicopter, at the cost of doubling the deck area as flight deck and multimission. I do like having a separate payload area from the flight deck, so I see the tradeoffs are not easy.
As for the second sea boat, it is a matter of safety and redudancy at sea. If there is only one boat and is lost (damaged, broken down), the ship may no longer sail safely, it might mean the end (abort) of a mission.
Regarding the crane, apparently both the River-class batch 2 and the Protector-class, both in the range of the 2,000 tons, have 16-tonnes cranes. Even myself have noticed at HMCS Donnacona (Montreal) that the MCDV model in exposition shows two cranes, useful tools to handle loads. Let me use an economic justification: in the video provided I have counted up to four “cranes” (two davits for RHIBs and two CubeTM launch and recovery modules for ROVs and similar payloads). How to fix these Cube modules to the deck is also to be analyzed to avoid modules overturning at the time of launching/retrieving heavy payloads. Would not it be cheaper to have a common crane? Take into account also maintenance and spare parts for the different crane models.
In reference to the gun, even though the 57mm piece triples the weight of the 40mm, there should also be a difference in shooting down UAVs and missiles or repelling unmanned surface maritime drones, especially these last ones. It is claimed that due to their fire rate they compare to 76mm guns. As for the Halifax class, I meant that their guns might be re-aconditioned and be used for this purpose by the time these vessels came into building. Ultimately, it lays on the RCN to decide whether the additional capability is worth.
This being said, the Vigilance video states (this vessel is…) “bridging the capability gap between AOPS and future frigates”. Where is the RCN pointing to? What will be the future fleet structure? Are they willing to make a Tier-3 combatant out of the Kingston replacement? Following the steps of the RN (with Type 31) and RAN, is there a place for a Tier 2 combatant?
I may figure out two scenarios. In the first scenario the MCDVs are replaced by a single class, full stop. In this case the replacement would require increased manning and sensors, as in this iteration of the Vigilance. Then the capability to host a medium-sized helicopter and a 57mm gun would be more critical.
In the second scenario the MCDVs might be replaced by a number (maybe 6?) of OPV-MCMs (maybe six?) plus some other Tier-2 combatants (another six?), as Wayne has already suggested. Hence, these OPVs might keep a reduced crew and have a degaussing system as in their predecessors, they would not require costly radars, missiles and a heavy gun, yet I would keep the MASS deceivers. Vigilance batch I would better fit into that role. They would be truly replacing the Kingstons, inheriting their story of low manning, low-cost success. The Tier-2 combatants would then be used for deployments overseas whenever the CSCs were too big or costly to be sent and to augment their fire power when needed. Nice Tier-2 candidates would be the Type 31, the European Patrol Corvette or Serco’s Atlas light frigate.
Crew would be between 40 to 60 dependent on weapon systems and sensors. Every time you add a system you need operators and maintainers. Adding a full helo pad while useful would affect the space you want for payloads. Griffons probably wouldn’t be certified onboard, and their reliability are in question frankly. Any requirement for a helo can be taken care of by vertical transfer unless we’re looking at buying a smaller helo as building for a Cyclone would add too much size and weight. Can’t see them going with a new smaller naval helicopter for AOPS. Second sea boat sure that would be good with one on the port and stbd with davits not cranes although the Kingston Class has made do with only one Rhib. Additional cranes aft in the payload area for payload deployment, probably port and stbd. The aft crane you saw in the Kingston Class model is the mechanical minesweeping crane for the deployment of floats, that fit that goes from ship to ship that is doing payloads that requires launching or recovery aft.
For the main gun from what I have been told the 57mm’s are probably going to be sent back to the manufacturer for credit much the same as the 76mm from the 280’s, no plans to refurbish a 30 year old gun. I personally would go with a MK38 25mm for commonality or the 30mm from CSC.
As it stands, the Kingston Class replacement will be a single class replacement that can basically do all of what the Kingston Class does now, and more capability added. Can’t see multitier ships or different batches for the cash and personnel strapped RCN. People are reading too much into what Vard is proposing. I would imagine they are trying to anticipate what the RCN requirements will be.
I like it but seems like too much ship to replace the Kingstons and too much money. Also too much for Davie, Irving and Seaspan to not want it instead of Ontario Shipyards.
It is too much Wayne, the more capabilities they try and fit in, the price goes up significantly. The Kingston Class’s longevity is due to the low crew requirement, ease and low cost of maintenance and operational cost. This is anything but. Keep in mind though that it’s Vard’s interpretation, nothing more and the government is in the early stages of determining what they want the Kingston Class replacement to do.
Maybe 6 new MCDV’s and 6 of the corvettes. It’s not that we can’t use something a little punchier between the CSC but budget and personnel intervene and the AOPS is a big ship. Of course if we are going to have 18 ships in the RCN that are not real warships then maybe we should have more warships too.
Hello Alex S. There are several other shipyards throughout the world which are building some capable OPVs that Canada may also want to consider, however, I believe this Vigilance Class OPV from Vard Marine has some interesting promise to replace the Kingston Class MCDVs. If the Vigilance entry into the race to swap out the Kingston class is successful, how many of them will be built? Hopefully a one-for-one scenario. If so, how many Batch I vs Batch II’s will be built? 6/6 or 4/8? Will the class have a Polar Class designation and what will the maximum speed of the Vigilance class be? What will the length, beam & draft be for this vessel and also what will the “full-load” tonnage be?
Hello David,
As far as I have been able to find, Vard has not shared any of the specifics you have requested. I have been following the Vigilance proposal for quite some time but they have never once provided any of those specifications. Regarding Polar Class designations specifically, I would not expect any of the OPV’s or Kingston class replacements to carry such a designation due to the existence of the AOPS and the additional complications that ice classes bring to any design.
Agree Jimmy. For Vard Marine to put out this ‘fluff’ brochure before the Project Definition Phase is completed, does not make any sense at all. If they are going to do that, then at least put some basic characteristics like OA length, Beam, Draft and tonnage in their brochures. They don’t seem to know what the RCN really needs for the Kingston replacement, just jamming everything that Thales makes for other navies into it and see what comes out the other end and hope it will all fit in the Vigilance class for the RCN. Don’t get me wrong, this is an interesting concept from Vard, but that’s all it is right now…. A concept!
As far as I know the replacements will be built out of low temp steel and have same sort of ice class as the Kingston Class. CONUSE has always stated Kingston Class is to operate in tandem with AOPS in the Arctic and I don’t see that mission changing.
P.S to Alex S. One final question Alex & probably the most important one which has to be addressed. What would be the approximate take-away costs of such a fleet because they sound “expensive” for the Canadian taxpayer?
I have been told 25 knots and around 2000 tonnes displacement with a longer length and greater breadth.
Was the goal of the MCDV project not to bring the Naval Reserve into relevance by giving it a relatively simple platform with limited but useful capabilities (i.e., MCM/route survey, coastal patrol)?
I struggle to conceive of a situation, given the nation’s finances and the RCN’s severe personnel challenges, why a government would agree to buy what looks to be a Tier 3 warship with a relatively sophisticated set of sensors and effectors, even if some of the latter were containerized. The training bill would be considerable, and would likely preclude the use of part-timers in many of those billets.
This pitch looks like a massive over-reach.
By all means replace the Kingston fleet, in whole or in part. But choose the capability set wisely. In the meantime, DeWolf will do the patrolling. CSC will wield the stick. The cranes and embarked landing craft on the new AORs will shuttle cargo during humanitarian ops. Such is our future surface fleet, and it will cover most of the tasks.
Hello Barnacle Bill. Agree with most of what you have said. However the facts are that even the Kingston class cannot be fully manned with both Regular and Reserve strength naval personnel (more Reg force than Reserve) in order to go to sea. So how is the RCN going to crew these Vigilance class as well right now?
Hi, pretty sure that’s not what the RCN is after. Originally the reserves were given the Kingston class for that mission, eventually it was no longer attenable for the reserves to continue and the regular force took over the ships almost in their entirety. The regular force is ruing the day when they took it over as crewing them fully is next to impossible, thus why they are shopping them around to several different countries and we have four hulls tied up. The tier 2 or 3 of Vard’s offering is most likely a PR stunt to try and position themselves to offer an alternative IF the CSC order is cut and to try and interpret what a ‘Corvette’ is to the RCN. You are correct that whatever they offer will be expensive. In my opinion what we need is the equivalent of a utility truck not a ford F250.
The current coalition government that resides in Ottawa has no stomach for such a vessel. Number one it’s not electric.
To be clear – we are not looking to add a fourth shipyard to NSS we are simply looking to compete in pillar two of NSS among the shipyards eligible to compete for that work. The Government of Canada has promised to deliver opportunities for the other shipyards to bid on programs below 1000t lwt in Pillar Two of the NSS.
Thank you for providing this. It is rare that we see a public comment from someone directly involved with a proposal.
Can we assume based on your comment that the proposed design is in fact less than 1000 tonnes?
Derek, Are you saying the Vard proposal is below 1000T?
There is no doubt the Kingston class will require replacement but the use of naval reserve personnel should not be a consideration. A previous post about the use of CB90 HSMs for primary naval reserve operation should be the goal. Following other navies it appears that modified offshore support vessels supporting MCM operations and undersea cable protection may offer the best bang for the buck for the direct Kingston replacement acting as mother ships. These would offer a return of a capability lost with the retirement of HMCS Cormorant in 1997. Personally I do not see a 1 for 1 hull replacement for the MCDVs due in part to personnel concerns. Maybe three vessels with one each coast and the third to cover maintenance refits. The CB90HSM offers far more benefits to the CAF as a whole with its emphasis of operations in the littoral. A two dozen fleet with six Esquimalt and Halifax and a dozen along the river and the lakes gives real opportunities for naval reserve training and support to all of government.
Philip, naval reserve personnel are serving in all classes of ships in the RCN including Kingston class and its replacements and the RCN will continue that crewing model. Yes CB 90’s should be incorporated into the naval reserves but used at units with water access and could be used in Arctic deployments during the summer and elsewhere. The Kingston Class replacement will probably be 6 to 8 vessels and incorporate mine countermeasures (MCM) operations are part of their modular payload capability.
Hello Philip. The CB90HSM is a great smaller coastal patrol vessel but likely more suited for smaller and better agencies like the CCG or CBSA to patrol our coasts to do fisheries or smuggling operations off Canada’s thousands of kilometres of coastlines with command support from the CAF/RCN. The Naval Reserves have always been a necessary and vital part of the RCN and always will be. They integrate seamlessly as part of the Kingston class crew as they have the same training as regular force RCN trades. If Canada does decide to go with the Vigilance class from Vard Marine as replacements for the Kingston class, it will be with a crew of both Reg Force AND Reserves as they are now with the Kingston class. I have personally supervised both Reserve & Reg Force RCN personnel and it would be an honour to sail with a full complement of either units on board. Believe me when I say that! Buying a couple dozen CB90HSM’s for both inland and coastal patrols throughout Canada’s borders is a great idea but as I said more & better suited for the Canadian Coast Guard & Canadian Border Service Agencies.