OPV = Offshore Patrol Vessel (not Operation/al).
Whether there will be a new class of ship to replace MCDVs is unknown, and whether the MCDVs will have a mid-life extension is also unknown. What is known, right now, is that there is not a plan (to do anything); the fact that there is no plan does not mean it will not happen, it is merely the climate in Ottawa -- CF and government planners working things out. Maybe this is not a high priority right now, or maybe it will never be a priority, but over the course of the years it could change.
The challenge with a MCDV being an Offshore Patrol Vessel is its design. It is desinged for inshore water, hence the shallow draught and flat bottom; unsuitable really for big ocean stuff. Notwithstanding that the ships have transitted open Pacific and open Atlantic, they do not perform well in the big blue; their role was meant to be close to harbours or confined areas. Personally, I think that given the Canadian coastlines (and I will leave out the Arctic for now), I find it just crazy that Canada does build ships that are not really suitable for the open sea -- you leave Halifax and five miles (and less) from the coast you are in it, and the west coast of Vancouver Island, the USA, BC's northern waters off the Queen Charlotte Islands, are all miserable places to be, especially in winter. Any vessel we consider should factor into the plan that the ships will be out there. Poor CF (Navy) planners?
Anyway, there are a few countries around using smaller than frigate, but perhaps larger than corvette sized OPV. The British have built them for Falklands Islands patrolling. Perhaps we should look at those, after all, a ship designed for the south Atlantic, a particularly nasty place, might suit us (tongue in cheek). The Danes have some as well, and they are ice-hardened http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/T/Thetis_frigate(1991-).htm . They require fewer people, too, so there is a substantial cost saving. CPFs are not bad ships, physically, for fisheries patrols, but it is very expensive and really a waste of something designed to be overseas "fighting", not here "patrolling".
In terms of number of people on board for cleaning, firefighting, etc., other navies seem to be adapting to this. The Danish ships have about 60 people on board. To bring this to current terms, we could probably get away with fewer people in the MCDVs as well. Because of the way we do business, we generally have more crew, but strictly in terms of cleaning and firefighting/damage control, the Canadian Coast Guard has MCDV sized ships with only fifteen people on board, and they seem to do all right (they come and go from harbours, anchor, patrol, clean, paint, rescue, send RHIBs away, and fight fires). One might argue that they do not have to deal with battle damage, but realistically, the MCDVs do not have to either. I wonder what the mathematical probability of a MCDV taking a hit based on a drug interdiction would be, versus a coast guard ship seconded to the RCMP for the same reason -- statistically different or insignificant?
