Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Stoker]

West coast icebreaker in the Western Arctic crew changed every 28 days. Even if you maxed that out to 60 days, and flew a new crew in and the old one home, you likley get a happier crew. The east coast ships were doing 6 months trips and you could feel the poor morale at the 3 month mark.

Aren't they still doing 6 month trips out East?

 

[Stoker]

I know that if the GoC wanted AOPVs sailing around in the arctic all summer, they'd be doing it. So why is it you think they should be up there all summer against the wishes of the RCN and GoC?

---

If the Government of Canada truly didn’t want the RCN to sustain Arctic patrols, then why design the Harry DeWolf-class with a 6,800-nautical-mile range, the ability to remain at sea for four months, and then go further and invest in the Nanisivik refuelling depot? Those aren’t the hallmarks of a token presence, they’re the building blocks of a sustained Arctic capability.

Strategically, that matters. Russia has militarized its northern coastline with airfields, missile sites, and expanded icebreaker fleets. China has openly declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and is investing heavily in polar research and resource access. Meanwhile, foreign mining projects are opening in our own backyard. Against that backdrop, an occasional two-week swing through the Northwest Passage is not enough to demonstrate sovereignty or deterrence in my opinion.

The AOPS were purpose, built to give Canada persistent patrol capacity in the North, patrols measured in months, not days. Their endurance, combined with Nanisivik when operable, was meant to close the gap between what Canada says about Arctic sovereignty and what it can actually enforce. The ships are not being fully leveraged for what they were designed to do. If we’re serious about sovereignty, the strategic logic is clear: these vessels should be operating in the Arctic for the bulk of the navigation season, not just making symbolic visits. Personally I suspect the reasons why AOPV's are not in the Arctic more is the extra tasks that are needed to take on given the Kingston Class being paid off and that goes against the GOC and RCN's Arctic and Northern Strategic Framework which states exactly what we're doing up there and how important it is. Someone once said about the Arctic use it or lose it and if these attitudes persist that's what's going to happen. All these years of getting these ships finally and people complain that they're going to the Arctic too much because its too hard on the sailors.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Aren't they still doing 6 month trips out East?

I can't tell if they do or not.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

---

If the Government of Canada truly didn’t want the RCN to sustain Arctic patrols, then why design the Harry DeWolf-class with a 6,800-nautical-mile range, the ability to remain at sea for four months, and then go further and invest in the Nanisivik refuelling depot? Those aren’t the hallmarks of a token presence, they’re the building blocks of a sustained Arctic capability.

Strategically, that matters. Russia has militarized its northern coastline with airfields, missile sites, and expanded icebreaker fleets. China has openly declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and is investing heavily in polar research and resource access. Meanwhile, foreign mining projects are opening in our own backyard. Against that backdrop, an occasional two-week swing through the Northwest Passage is not enough to demonstrate sovereignty or deterrence in my opinion.

The AOPS were purpose, built to give Canada persistent patrol capacity in the North, patrols measured in months, not days. Their endurance, combined with Nanisivik when operable, was meant to close the gap between what Canada says about Arctic sovereignty and what it can actually enforce. The ships are not being fully leveraged for what they were designed to do. If we’re serious about sovereignty, the strategic logic is clear: these vessels should be operating in the Arctic for the bulk of the navigation season, not just making symbolic visits. Personally I suspect the reasons why AOPV's are not in the Arctic more is the extra tasks that are needed to take on given the Kingston Class being paid off and that goes against the GOC and RCN's Arctic and Northern Strategic Framework which states exactly what we're doing up there and how important it is. Someone once said about the Arctic use it or lose it and if these attitudes persist that's what's going to happen. All these years of getting these ships finally and people complain that they're going to the Arctic too much because its too hard on the sailors.

If crewing is a problem for the Arctic, then adopt the two crew cycle and adjust your schedule around that. Yea you might have to drop some other tasks as you adjust to the new way of doing things, but learning to say no is part of being a grown up and the RCN needs to say no to itself and the government a bit more.

 

[Czech_pivo]

---

If the Government of Canada truly didn’t want the RCN to sustain Arctic patrols, then why design the Harry DeWolf-class with a 6,800-nautical-mile range, the ability to remain at sea for four months, and then go further and invest in the Nanisivik refuelling depot? Those aren’t the hallmarks of a token presence, they’re the building blocks of a sustained Arctic capability.

Strategically, that matters. Russia has militarized its northern coastline with airfields, missile sites, and expanded icebreaker fleets. China has openly declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and is investing heavily in polar research and resource access. Meanwhile, foreign mining projects are opening in our own backyard. Against that backdrop, an occasional two-week swing through the Northwest Passage is not enough to demonstrate sovereignty or deterrence in my opinion.

The AOPS were purpose, built to give Canada persistent patrol capacity in the North, patrols measured in months, not days. Their endurance, combined with Nanisivik when operable, was meant to close the gap between what Canada says about Arctic sovereignty and what it can actually enforce. The ships are not being fully leveraged for what they were designed to do. If we’re serious about sovereignty, the strategic logic is clear: these vessels should be operating in the Arctic for the bulk of the navigation season, not just making symbolic visits. Personally I suspect the reasons why AOPV's are not in the Arctic more is the extra tasks that are needed to take on given the Kingston Class being paid off and that goes against the GOC and RCN's Arctic and Northern Strategic Framework which states exactly what we're doing up there and how important it is. Someone once said about the Arctic use it or lose it and if these attitudes persist that's what's going to happen. All these years of getting these ships finally and people complain that they're going to the Arctic too much because its too hard on the sailors.

An expanded role and capability at Churchill will only add to everything you say. It could be used as a staging area for crew rotations as well with its train and airfield capabilities.

 

[Stoker]

An expanded role and capability at Churchill will only add to everything you say. It could be used as a staging area for crew rotations as well with its train and airfield capabilities.

Churchill is probably the worse spot for a naval base

 

[Furniture]

---

If the Government of Canada truly didn’t want the RCN to sustain Arctic patrols, then why design the Harry DeWolf-class with a 6,800-nautical-mile range, the ability to remain at sea for four months, and then go further and invest in the Nanisivik refuelling depot? Those aren’t the hallmarks of a token presence, they’re the building blocks of a sustained Arctic capability.

Strategically, that matters. Russia has militarized its northern coastline with airfields, missile sites, and expanded icebreaker fleets. China has openly declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and is investing heavily in polar research and resource access. Meanwhile, foreign mining projects are opening in our own backyard. Against that backdrop, an occasional two-week swing through the Northwest Passage is not enough to demonstrate sovereignty or deterrence in my opinion.

The AOPS were purpose, built to give Canada persistent patrol capacity in the North, patrols measured in months, not days. Their endurance, combined with Nanisivik when operable, was meant to close the gap between what Canada says about Arctic sovereignty and what it can actually enforce. The ships are not being fully leveraged for what they were designed to do. If we’re serious about sovereignty, the strategic logic is clear: these vessels should be operating in the Arctic for the bulk of the navigation season, not just making symbolic visits. Personally I suspect the reasons why AOPV's are not in the Arctic more is the extra tasks that are needed to take on given the Kingston Class being paid off and that goes against the GOC and RCN's Arctic and Northern Strategic Framework which states exactly what we're doing up there and how important it is. Someone once said about the Arctic use it or lose it and if these attitudes persist that's what's going to happen. All these years of getting these ships finally and people complain that they're going to the Arctic too much because its too hard on the sailors.

You are mistaking my lack of interest in wasting time in the north for not being interested in the north.

The AOPVs were built to give Canada the option to put ships up there when we want, not to leave ships up there all summer. If the GoC wanted an RCN presence in the Arctic full time, you and I would be competing for HMC Dockyard Iqaluit Chief position.

Personally, I suspect the MCDVs spent so much time sailing around up there, because we were paying a second navy to exist, so they might as well pretend to do something useful. Waving the flag and swapping liquor bottles with the Danes is better stories than dealing drugs after all...

 

[Stoker]

You are mistaking my lack of interest in wasting time in the north for not being interested in the north.

The AOPVs were built to give Canada the option to put ships up there when we want, not to leave ships up there all summer. If the GoC wanted an RCN presence in the Arctic full time, you and I would be competing for HMC Dockyard Iqaluit Chief position.

Personally, I suspect the MCDVs spent so much time sailing around up there, because we were paying a second navy to exist, so they might as well pretend to do something useful. Waving the flag and swapping liquor bottles with the Danes is better stories than dealing drugs after all...

Holy moly b’y, show me where the MCDV touched you. What a load of crap dragging up that Saskatoon coke story. Did you really have to go digging through years of CBC archives just to score a weak point? Don’t throw rocks in glass houses there sailor. Plenty of coke stories and worse to go around. Why would you even drag something like that up? Didn’t you sail on the West Coast when all this was going on? It was after all a West Coast ship.

It’s apparent you’ve never been up north, but at least you sailed on Max Bernays. Taking barometric pressure and cloud observations is important work off Hawaii. You must be a pretty seasoned AOPV sailor, with your finger on the pulse of what the rank and file really wants or doesn’t want to do.

And let’s be clear, us Chiefs don’t set postings or decide where ships sail or how long they do. If it ever came down to it, I would love to be posted to Iqaluit or a AOPV. BTW, I never said full time I said the entire navigational season which is shorter than the current Kingston Class deployment on Op Reassurance. If we can't do that, we don't deserve to be in the Arctic.

So you’re absolutely right, the “second navy” didn’t do sweet frig all in the Arctic or anywhere else, we were just cruising around with our thumbs up our ass the entire time.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Hello all stations. This frequency for MCDV traffic only. All other topics, clear this frequency. Out.

 

[dapaterson]

Hello all stations. This frequency for MCDV traffic only. All other topics, clear this frequency. Out.

We will reduce traffic by two thirds by the end of the year then.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think this thread is getting close to having outlived its usefulness. When we are down to four, with decommissioning every six months for a couple of years, I think there will not be much worth discussing about them, unless something quite spectacular and out of norms happens.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You are mistaking my lack of interest in wasting time in the north for not being interested in the north.

The AOPVs were built to give Canada the option to put ships up there when we want, not to leave ships up there all summer. If the GoC wanted an RCN presence in the Arctic full time, you and I would be competing for HMC Dockyard Iqaluit Chief position.

Personally, I suspect the MCDVs spent so much time sailing around up there, because we were paying a second navy to exist, so they might as well pretend to do something useful. Waving the flag and swapping liquor bottles with the Danes is better stories than dealing drugs after all...

Canada having a presence in the arctic archipelago is an important part of continental defense. The AOP's give the RCN a real role to play, in what is a all of government responsibility. It is far better to be proactive in showing our commitment, than having to deal with a physical challenge to the territory. Canada's lack of action in much of the area, weakens our claims. A good example of this is now playing out in the conflict between the Philippines and China. The Philippines mostly used the legal claim to it's territory as a defense, which it is now struggling to hold and get back from China.
A AOPS sailing the region and putting parties ashore, research, patrolling, exercising with the locals is cheaper in the long run, than a actual conflict over the region. The rule of law is only valuable when all parties respect it and China uses and discards it at their whim.