Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Furniture]

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.

It needs to be weighed against the actual threat, and the cost/benefit of putting ships and personnel up there.

We have presence up in the arctic via the Rangers, and the other CAF elements operating in the North all year. Sending a few ships up on occasion is a good use of resources, but sending AOPVs up there just to be there is a waste of resources. We have a limited number of sailors, and limited amount of resources to use for getting ships to sea. We need to manage those resources wisely, and remember that we are a global trade nation, so we have obligations all over the planet.

The arctic is important, but it isn't everything. We have other obligations, and other interests.

 

[Stoker]

Tell me you don't know what my job is, without telling me you know absolutely nothing. That you feel personally attacked enough to go after my occupation kind of lends credence to my position. MCDVS did good work, but they did what they could, when they could. Sending small cheap ships up north was a cheap and easy way to wave the flag... That's not a reflection of the quality of your service, but it is a reflection of what the MCDVs were capable of.

I actually speak with sailors, sailors who don't work for me, so don't need to lie to me because they are afraid of what their PAR will say...

Lastly, I have been up north, in our actual permeant presence in the north, CFS Alert. The place that does more for our arctic sovereignty than all MCDV taskings to the arctic combined. I get that the north is important, I just don't want to see us waste time and effort sailing in circles up there so that some least coaster can feel special about his time on the MCDVs.

You’re right that the MCDVs were limited ships – nobody’s pretending they were icebreakers or frigates. But “cheap flag-waving” devalues what they actually did. They weren’t just driving in circles. They carried out fisheries patrols, sovereignty exercises, intel collection, and community engagement that bigger ships couldn’t always fit into their schedule or draft. We worked extensively with OGD helping them with tasks they couldn't carry out as we were often a cheap alternative and able to get into areas where larger ships couldn't. We even hold the record for the farthest north any RCN ship has gone — a record that only this summer the AOPS will finally break. That’s why they were consistently tasked north for nearly two decades – because the work was real, not pretend.

In fact, those “cheap ships” carried out some highly valuable tasks: hydrographic work with the fitted multibeam echo sounder, laying hydrophones in the Northwest Passage for an experimental DRDC listening post, supporting the search for HMS Terror, and even dropping off Rangers for northern patrols and many others. They were actually ideal for this work because of their ability to carry different payloads and modular mission fits, which gave them a flexibility larger combatants didn’t have. If you think all of that is just flag waving, man, there’s something wrong with your thinking.

CFS Alert is important, no argument there. But to say that a static station does “more for Arctic sovereignty” than naval patrols isn’t quite right. One is a permanent footprint, the other is mobility and presence across thousands of nautical miles of coastline. Canada maintains both precisely because they complement each other. You don’t establish sovereignty by having a single outpost – you do it by showing up across the whole region, which is what those deployments provided.

And as for sailors’ opinions, let’s be honest: trying to counter the narrative by claiming people only spoke to me because I wrote their PARs is weak. Yes, I’ve spent a lot of time in the Arctic, but I also sail in Harry DeWolf-class ships for readiness training, and I talk to many sailors who don’t work for me — and they’ve painted a narrative that’s contrary to what you’re saying. Yes, I made a swipe at your trade, but only after you took a swipe at my sailing career and tried to devalue it with a tired BS story about coke use 20 years ago. You can do better than that, Chief.

Dismissing that as “least coaster ego” misses the bigger picture: the Navy sent those ships for a reason, and they delivered on the missions assigned. If it was truly wasted effort, Ottawa would have stopped sending them years ago.

 

[Stoker]

It needs to be weighed against the actual threat, and the cost/benefit of putting ships and personnel up there.

We have presence up in the arctic via the Rangers, and the other CAF elements operating in the North all year. Sending a few ships up on occasion is a good use of resources, but sending AOPVs up there just to be there is a waste of resources. We have a limited number of sailors, and limited amount of resources to use for getting ships to sea. We need to manage those resources wisely, and remember that we are a global trade nation, so we have obligations all over the planet.

The arctic is important, but it isn't everything. We have other obligations, and other interests.

Furniture, I don’t think anyone’s arguing the Arctic is “everything” or that we should park the whole fleet up there year-round. Nobody’s saying we should have a naval presence 12 months a year , the ice and conditions don’t allow it. What we are saying is that for the four months the region is open and accessible, we need to use that window. Saying AOPS deployments are just a waste of resources doesn’t square with the facts.

First off, risk isn’t just about “threats.” Marine traffic in the Arctic keeps trending up year after year. With that comes higher chances of accidents, SAR calls, and environmental response. That’s why Canada made NORDREG mandatory back in 2010. The regulations only mean something if we actually show up at sea to enforce them , you can’t do that from CFS Alert. The Coast Guard has ships up north every season too, but their mandate is safety and service, not defence. They work alongside the Navy, not instead of it.

Second, Rangers are indispensable, but they’re not a substitute for ships. They provide eyes, presence, and resiliency in northern communities, but they don’t do boardings, fisheries enforcement, hydrography, or search and rescue at sea. That’s why Op NANOOK brings them together with the RCN, RCAF, and CCG , because sovereignty isn’t a one-dimensional job.

Third, AOPS were built for exactly this. They carry small crews (about 65, with room for ~85), have 6,800 nm range, and the mission bay for containers, survey gear, UAVs, boats, or landing craft. That makes them the efficient option for northern patrols, instead of tying up frigates with triple the crew and cost.

Fourth, it’s not just “showing the flag.” Northern deployments have supported hydrographic mapping with multibeam sonar, laid hydrophones in the Northwest Passage for DRDC’s Northern Watch, assisted in the HMS Terror search, and delivered Rangers for long-range patrols. That’s real work that pays dividends in science, surveillance, and sovereignty.

Finally, the support is already being built. Nanisivik’s seasonal refueling capacity is coming online precisely so these ships can loiter longer up north without burning resources shuttling back south. And let’s not forget before the AOPS, it was the Kingston-class that carried the burden of those Arctic deployments. They did the fisheries patrols, route surveys, community engagements, and experimental science tasks for nearly two decades. AOPS aren’t starting something new; they’re building on what the Kingston's already proved was both useful and achievable.

So yes, Canada’s a global trading nation with obligations abroad but that doesn’t make the Arctic optional. The Coast Guard, Rangers, and northern stations are all key pieces, but none of them can replace the role of a naval ship at sea. Seasonal AOPS patrols are how you tie it all together: cost-effective presence at home, while keeping the high-end fleet for global tasks. Calling that a waste is selling short both the mission and the sailors doing it.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Furniture, I don’t think anyone’s arguing the Arctic is “everything” or that we should park the whole fleet up there year-round. Nobody’s saying we should have a naval presence 12 months a year , the ice and conditions don’t allow it. What we are saying is that for the four months the region is open and accessible, we need to use that window. Saying AOPS deployments are just a waste of resources doesn’t square with the facts.

First off, risk isn’t just about “threats.” Marine traffic in the Arctic keeps trending up year after year. With that comes higher chances of accidents, SAR calls, and environmental response. That’s why Canada made NORDREG mandatory back in 2010. The regulations only mean something if we actually show up at sea to enforce them , you can’t do that from CFS Alert. The Coast Guard has ships up north every season too, but their mandate is safety and service, not defence. They work alongside the Navy, not instead of it.

Second, Rangers are indispensable, but they’re not a substitute for ships. They provide eyes, presence, and resiliency in northern communities, but they don’t do boardings, fisheries enforcement, hydrography, or search and rescue at sea. That’s why Op NANOOK brings them together with the RCN, RCAF, and CCG , because sovereignty isn’t a one-dimensional job.

Third, AOPS were built for exactly this. They carry small crews (about 65, with room for ~85), have 6,800 nm range, and the mission bay for containers, survey gear, UAVs, boats, or landing craft. That makes them the efficient option for northern patrols, instead of tying up frigates with triple the crew and cost.

Fourth, it’s not just “showing the flag.” Northern deployments have supported hydrographic mapping with multibeam sonar, laid hydrophones in the Northwest Passage for DRDC’s Northern Watch, assisted in the HMS Terror search, and delivered Rangers for long-range patrols. That’s real work that pays dividends in science, surveillance, and sovereignty.

Finally, the support is already being built. Nanisivik’s seasonal refueling capacity is coming online precisely so these ships can loiter longer up north without burning resources shuttling back south. And let’s not forget before the AOPS, it was the Kingston-class that carried the burden of those Arctic deployments. They did the fisheries patrols, route surveys, community engagements, and experimental science tasks for nearly two decades. AOPS aren’t starting something new; they’re building on what the Kingston's already proved was both useful and achievable.

So yes, Canada’s a global trading nation with obligations abroad but that doesn’t make the Arctic optional. The Coast Guard, Rangers, and northern stations are all key pieces, but none of them can replace the role of a naval ship at sea. Seasonal AOPS patrols are how you tie it all together: cost-effective presence at home, while keeping the high-end fleet for global tasks. Calling that a waste is selling short both the mission and the sailors doing it.

I hope Nanisivik gets scrapped and we build 2 facilities, west and east sides of the Arctic, in existing habitable settlements where the crews can go ashore for a few days of R&R before continuing on with their missions. A place where fresh produce and such can be air transported out to for the crews.