By Mikael Perron, 20 July 2024
There were a lot of comments on the post concerning the Vigilance-class design. There were legitimate concerns and questions that remain unanswered. In the next few posts, I will let myself be optimistic and try to see what good that proposal could bring to the RCN.
Let’s first look at the platform. From what I can see, this seems to be a highly modified variant of the Vard 7 072 design.
https://vardmarine.com/gallery/vard-7-072
https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/VARD-7-072-Infographic.pdf
Probably in order to face our specific North Atlantic playground, the bow was modified with an enclosed focsle and a more efficient bulbous bow. Also, to get the necessary room to fit the different sensors/communication equipment, different remote weapon systems and an at-sea replenishment capability, the funnel was removed and the engine exhaust ducts are now situated just above the water line (a feature that can be found on ships like the French Aquitaine FREMM frigate). In order to maximise the aft modular section, the flight deck was moved slightly forward and was reduced in size in order to only operate UAVs. It would be sufficient in size to undertake some medical evacuation or VERTREP operations. Let’s remember that such a ship needs to remain small with a relatively small crew in order to be affordable. We are also talking Kingston replacement and a little gap filling capability to be discussed further on.
In terms of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, I would say that this particular vessel has a design displacement on the edge of the 1000 tonnes limit that separate the small from the large vessels in the NSS. I believe it would displace between 1200-1300 tonnes; so a lot of discussion to be done politically there!
We are now looking at a design that addresses the limitation of the MCDVs. The bad seakeeping qualities of the latter are definitely not a problem with such a design as well as the low maximum speed and limited range. The Vard 7 072 design is said to be able to reach 21 knots and to have an economical cruise speed of 16 knots. Also, if we only consider the Flight I, the weapon fit is improved over the MCDVs and allows for a much better self-defence capability against asymmetric threat. It makes them very appropriate vessels for missions such as Op Caribbe, piracy prevention patrols and any other mission previously done by the MCDVs.
If we take a closer look at Flight I, we should consider that if offers a very large aft modular section that should easily be able to deploy every kit we are now operating on the Kingston-class and everything they are proposing. Among such modular kit, they could deploy one to two RCN’s new multi-role boats (MRB) that are to equip the Halifax-class, Protecteur-class and River-class ships. They also propose some state of the art MCM kit plus ROV and route survey kit. They offer similar capability than the Dutch-Belgian RMCM ships but at a lesser degree. The organic RHIB capability could probably be the same as the Harry DeWolf class. Some are worried that it only had a single organic RHIB capability but the twin engine configuration of the new ones should compensate enough. The uprated weapon fit is most welcome, it would allow for the ship to operate independently in many more scenarios. To use the same decoy system as the Halifax-class is very good. The remote weapon stations on both side are said to be available in 20mm or 0.50 cal version. An alternative could be to use the same NRWS as the Halifax- and Protecteur-class although the extra punch of the 20mm would be welcome against modern threat. In my view, the Bofor 40mm Mk4 gun is a perfect gun for such a ship. It is quite different from the Bofor 40mm gun originally installed on the MCDVs. I definitely wouldn’t worry about too many different ammo types for the RCN. Worse come to worst, I would fit the Leonardo Lionfish 30mm gun to the Vigilance and AOPS but I would rather retro-fit the Lionfish or the Bofor to the AOPS and keep the Bofor for the Vigilance. It is a well-balanced weapon for such a ship. For more on it:
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-the-bofors-40mm-mk-4-gun-that-will-equip-the-type-31-frigates
More to come in my next post.
2 thoughts on “Vigilance Class and the Possibilities: Part 1”
Vard makes a lot of nice platforms but there are many Vard-like companies globally out there who has better designs. The Type 072 design doesn’t meet some of the requirements of the Canadian multi-mission Corvette project. One is speed, the requirement that I saw had it at 25 knots which the Vard design doesn’t meet, another is range at 4800 NM. Any replacement will need the range to operate globally and often without replenishment support. Deck space is another, from what I have seen ISO payload storage is sparse and the crane seems small. The Type 072 is well past 1000 tonnes which means it can’t be built at other yards under the NSS.
When the requirements officially drop you’ll see many companies bid. Personally I would like to see the UK’s River class be selected if they bid. They’re globally deployable, great range, adequate weapons, lots of payload space and a proven design. The ship can also be automated more in order to keep crew requirement low. Throw a 35mm on it and now you’re talking.
Any ship design that we should be buying needs to economical to operate and low maintenance requirements that could be repaired in literally any port. That’s why the Kingston-class was so successful over the years. Whatever design that Vard or whoever comes up with will be expensive and with a government change coming and the replacement project not even funded, I wouldn’t get our hopes up.
Hello Mikael. I tend to agree with Ted totally. If, and only if, DND decides to purchase a Vard product, as a minimum, I would think the Vard 095 OPV would be a much better fit. It has speeds of 26 kts along with a hull-mounted sonar and greater ranges. Ted Barnes’ personal take on the UK Type 31 River-class is a much better option and would be a great fit for the RCN. The ‘corvette’ option for the Type 31 would be one Canada should at least seriously consider. Cheers!