Canadian CG MPV. Credit Aker Arctic.
Below is a press release from Seaspan Shipyards regarding a contract awarded for the Canadian Coast Guard’s Multi-Purpose Vessel program. We talked about these ships earlier. I am going to repeat some of that earlier post here. Much like USCG Juniper class buoy tenders or the Great Lakes Icebreaker Mackinaw, these Canadian ships are made to both tend buoys and break ice. But these ships will be a lot bigger than the Mackinaw and it appears they can also support a helicopter and probably UAS.
CHARACTERISTICS:
- Displacement: about 8,500 tons
- Length, overall: 99.9 meters (328′)
- Beam: 20.3 meters (66.7′)
- Draft: 6.2 meters (20’4″)
- Propulsion: diesel-electric; two azimuthing propulsion units
- Range 12,000 nautical miles
The relatively shallow draft was a design requirement.
Canadian CG MPV. Credit Aker Arctic.
ICE CLASS:
These ships will be Canadian Ice Class 4, meaning they will have the capability to maintain a speed of 3 knots through ice 4 feet thick. The Canadian Coast Guard will consider these heavy icebreakers. We don’t have any figures on horsepower, but they probably will have less than 20,000 HP which, in the USCG system, would classify them as light icebreakers.
Compared to the US Coast Guard’s “heavy” Great Lakes icebreaker, Mackinaw (3,500 tons and 73m), these will be more powerful and more than twice as large. These might be a good design for the planned second USCG Great Lakes icebreaker.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE USCG:
Aside from possible use of the design for Great Lakes icebreaker, these might be pretty close to what the USCG needs for their planned medium icebreakers. Certainly, consultation with Canadian counterparts will sharpen the focus of the US design effort. We might also have reasons to limit beam and/or draft.
I might add that, ships like these could make good companions (tenders/mother ships) for support of distant FRC operations, carrying fuel, supplies, and air assets.
Seaspan Shipyards Progresses to Next Phase of Designing and Building Multi-Purpose Vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard
March 26, 2024 – North Vancouver, BC – Seaspan Shipyards (Seaspan) has been awarded the Construction Engineering (CE) and Long Lead Items (LLI) contracts for the pre-construction work of the Canadian Coast Guard’s (CCG) first six Multi-Purpose Vessels (MPV).
Following the successful completion of the vessel’s Basic Design review in late 2023, Seaspan was awarded the CE and LLI contracts to complete the design and engineering work and to procure long lead-time material and equipment to ensure readiness to proceed with the construction of the first six ships of the up to 16 vessel fleet.
“This milestone demonstrates the tremendous capabilities in marine design and engineering that have been developed through the National Shipbuilding Strategy. Our team, along with our partners from coast to coast, are excited to move to the next phase of this program, and ultimately provide the Canadian Coast Guard with the vessels they need to manage and safeguard Canada’s coastlines. A long run of ships like the MPV program enables Seaspan to continue to drive improvement and generate greater efficiencies, while ensuring we have stability for the next generation of shipbuilders, marine engineers and designers and supply chain in Canada,” said John McCarthy, Chief Executive Officer, Seaspan Shipyards.
“The designers and the ship builders of Seaspan Vancouver Shipyard – are playing key roles in taking the Canadian Coast Guard’s new multi-purpose vessels (MPVs) out of the drawing room and into the open ocean. The contracts announced today are an important milestone to getting these ships completed and represent an important investment in North Vancouver. This will secure good jobs while advancing the delivery of the MPVs to significantly expand the operational capacity of our Coast Guard for years to come.” – The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Energy & Natural Resources and MP for North Vancouver.
The MPVs will be Polar Class 4 vessels, allowing them to carry out multiple missions including icebreaking in moderate ice conditions and assisting in shipping and flood control, search and rescue, environmental response, as well as maintaining Canada’s marine navigation system composed of approximately 17,000 aids to navigation. The new fleet of MPVs will replace the existing fleet of High Endurance Multi-Tasked Vessels and Medium Endurance Multi-Tasked Vessels.
“The Canadian Coast Guard saves lives at sea, maintains waterways open and safe for the movement of goods and services, protects the marine environment and supports Canadian sovereignty and security. The Multi-Purpose Vessels will be key assets for the Canadian Coast Guard’s future fleet, giving our personnel the modern, reliable tools they need to continue their vital work from coast to coast to coast,” said Mike Kelloway, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.
Seaspan has already gained significant experience designing and building Polar Class vessels including three Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels which are now in service with the Canadian Coast Guard; an Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel that is currently under construction; and a heavy Polar Icebreaker, the first of its kind to be designed and constructed in Canada in 60 years. Seaspan is preparing to cut steel on the Polar Icebreaker in late 2024 with the recent completion of a prototype block, ensuring that proper processes, procedures, and equipment are in place to build a vessel of this complexity.
QUICK FACTS ABOUT THE MULTI-PURPOSE VESSELS
- With a displacement of 8,500 tonnes, the Multi-Purpose Vessels will be 99.9 metres long and 20.3 metres wide, and able to accommodate up to 50 personnel.
- The area of operation for the MPV will include:
- Year-round operations in Canada’s eastern and western seaboards, within Canada’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
- Year-round operations in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence River, and the Great Lakes
- Seasonal (summer) operations in the western and lower Arctic
- Under the NSS, Seaspan has become a major economic and job creation engine. According to an economic analysis conducted by Deloitte, Seaspan has contributed $5.7 billion to Canada’s GDP since 2012, while also creating or sustaining more than 7,000 jobs annually.
SOCIAL MEDIA
Twitter: @Seaspan
LinkedIn: Seaspan ULC
Instagram: @SeaspanULC
Facebook: Seaspan
ABOUT SEASPAN
Seaspan, a division of Seaspan ULC, is a leader in Canada’s ship design, engineering, building and ship repair industry. With modern facilities and a dedicated workforce of approximately 3,900 in North Vancouver and Victoria, the company has proven itself to be a trusted and strategic partner on a range of complex projects for both government and the private sector.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
Canadian Coast Guard published a short YouTube video highlighting the key features:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szrIkXvZvqQ
The ships have a 20-ton deck crane and a 1,000-cubic-metre (35,000 cu ft) cargo hold. One of the reasons why at least MPV Flight 1 is so “heavy” is the seasonal Arctic mission which requires both endurance and cargo capacity. I wouldn’t be surprised if either Flight 2 or 3 would be slightly “downsized” for those areas where e.g. fixed hangar is not required. Together with other changes, it could allow cutting out a “plug” from amidships.
The video also mentions that the icebreaking capability is 3 knots in 0.9 m (3 ft) ice. These are, after all, classified as “light icebreakers” in the Canadian service. However, because of the aforementioned Arctic mission the hull is reinforced to Polar Class 4 (“year-round operation in thick first-year ice which may include old ice inclusions”) level to withstand collision with heavier ice floes even if the ship had to occasionally rely on repeated ramming to break through them.
If we consider all three planned flights to belong to the same ship class, then the CCG MPVs will be the largest single class of modern icebreakers; only the Cold War- era Soviet-built Dobrynya Nikitich -class port and coastal icebreakers were more numerous (32 ships in total in various configurations including eight Ivan Susanin -class patrol ships).
Although the CCG MPV as it is now may not be suitable for USCG’s needs, there are certainly elements that could be applicable to the future Great Lakes icebreaker and possibly even the planned medium icebreakers.
@Tups, thanks for the video and your insight.
Maybe we should help us build our Icebreakers, short commute
Maybe we should make an exception to the Jones Act for icebreakers.
It’s actually not the Jones Act, but two other laws (14 U.S.C. 1151 and 10 U.S.C. 8679) which prevent the Coast Guard building their ships abroad without a presidential waiver.
Check the chapter “Laws Relating to Building Ships in Foreign Shipyards” on page 33 in the most recent Polar Security Cutter report for Congress for more details.
If a private company wanted to operate an icebreaker in the US, they could use a foreign-built ship as long as the operation was limited to strictly icebreaking and did not include transportation of “goods, wares, and chattels of every description”.
I believed this vessel is a Vard design, the same company who design the
Offshore Patrol Cutter. So I am sure they would gladly sale the design to
a American shipyard.
It’s an Aker Arctic design:
https://akerarctic.fi/en/arctic-passion/multi-purpose-vessel-designed-for-canada/
Oops my bad!
We need to be careful about suggestions that USCG Arctic Patrol Cutters copy this design. The concept for the APC was an OPC with ice-breaking capability. If the modern day MacNamaras (who brought us the trillion-dollar F-35 program) think they can squeeze more and more capabilities (like buoy tending) onto it, you KNOW the CG leadership will not say, “no.”. And the Congress critters will count the APC as a buoy tender and cut the number of future WLBs (specifically the ones in Alaska). And we all know the CG leadership NEVER resists bad ideas foisted on them from above… 🙄
I’d like to see Tups ideas for an Arctic Patrol Cutter design. He’s the smartest guy on breakers I’ve ever read! 😉
Yes, very glad Tups graces this blog with his expertise.
We don’t really have a stated requirement for an arctic patrol cutter that is “an OPC with ice-breaking capability.” Maybe it is in the Fleet Mix Study, and I think we will want such a ship, but–
The Arctic Security Cutter is described as a medium icebreaker.
Of course, before we fix on a design the Coast Guard has to decide what they want it to do.
The statement that they want a medium icebreakers means they want it to have 20,000 HP or more but less than 45,000.
That does not say anything about how much ice do you want to break, max speed, range, accommodations, lab space, cargo capability, weapons, reserve weight and space, sensors, quieting or any of the capabilities and qualities that would really define the ship.
Hopefully the specs are being worked on, but in all probability one of the specs will be that the new design is based on a proven design. Of course, the Coast Guard will modify whatever proven design we start with.
The Canadian multi-purpose design does have some things I think we want like a crane, flight deck and hangar, space for mission modules, cargo space and the buoy deck could be loaded with containers. They look like very versatile ships.
My memory has good days and bad days, but the Arctic Patrol Cutter concept of being an ‘OPC with medium icebreaking capability’ was something I read somewhere; either in Fleet Mix Study, or even perhaps as far back as when it was the Deepwater Program? Might have been informal, but I’m ascribing it to an official source…
“Of course, before we fix on a design the Coast Guard has to decide what they want it to do.” – Well, you said a lot there, and that’s an interesting discussion I think would fit well on your blog. We have a lot of smart guys here. I’m not one of them, but I’ll throw out some ideas:
Nat’l Def. / Law enforcement: minimum would be a couple Mk.38 Mod.4s giving true 360° coverage (probably one forward & port and one aft & starboard) plus weight and space set-aside for SeaRAM and modular NSM (as on LCSes). ECM would be very important (soft kills are effective, cheap, and have a deep ‘magazine’), but have you seen how large and complex the newest SEWIPs are? I suppose the same SLQ-32s going on the OPC would be sufficient. Nice to have would be a Mk. 110, but with space/weight needs on an icebreaker, that is doubtful. Would also need a boarding boat suitable for the Arctic, so some permutation of a RHIB, which in arctic environment needs to be davit-launched; no stern doors and boat ramp…. Fisheries enforcement in Bering Sea is going to be a huge part of these ships’ job. Probably would be smart to have a dual-purpose “Survivors/Detainees” space where offenders or survivors from SAR cases could be birthed.
Environmental: Of course over-the-side cranes for the scientists, but I really think on a beamy ship like an icebreaker, a moon-pool would be do-able and work better, especially in ice conditions. Of course science workshops for NSF & other researchers. The Navy too should be consulted, because an ice-capable ship with a moon-pool would probably be very useful/interesting with all of their arctic warfare and submarine warfare research. Another Environmental mission area it seems is rarely talked about is pollution control and remediation. As traffic in Arctic regions becomes heavier, so do the risks of spills and accidents. Having arctic-stationed cutters with a response capability “baked in” from the design would be very proactive in our reactive world… (Of course the WLBs in District 14 have a capability for this too, but distances in and around Alaska being what they are, more Cutters having the capability is much better.)
SAR: This is going to be another huge mission area for these ships (along with fisheries). Radio DF, radars (surface and air search), an H-60 capable flight deck, a couple UAV(s) would be essential. Already mentioned are an arctic-appropriate boarding RHIB (which would also be good for SAR, given similarities of requirements in these mission areas) and Detainee/Survivors compartment.
ATON: Just for the record, I see no point. ATONs would only be worked when ice is receding in Spring, and the ice-capable WLBs are better for the mission.
Special Arctic equipment and capabilities:
• An Arctic Survey boat will be a necessity, not only to support science along the sea-shoreline interface, but also for connectivity to shallow-water shore communities in rural Alaska.
• Some Rescue/Salvage and Towing capability – the Arctic is very unforgiving, and an ability to do some rescue, salvage and towing could be the difference between a disaster and a small event. Hawsers, towing lines, bits, a towing drum/winch with automatic tensioning, dewatering pumps, and even some tug-like padding/rub rails on sides and bow to help with larger vessels, which have propulsion or steering casualties, such as tankers, factory ships, and even cruise ships would be smart. The 20,000 to 45,000 hp level CG wants would give strong capability here.
• I am not up on ice classifications and what the different countries use as ice classes, but I would say these need to be capable of operating freely in sea ice as well as able to break 1st year ice. Heavier would be welcome, but this would be my minimum.
I’ll shut up now. I’d love to hear Tups, Chuck’s and others (particularly Dist. 14 folks’) ideas.
@Bill Smith, I think you may be suffering from to long exposure too this blog. I may be your official source for an Arctic Patrol Cutter requirement. I talked about the possibility back in 2011, Arctic Patrol Cutter? | Chuck Hill’s CG Blog (chuckhillscgblog.net)
Looking back at this, Arctic Patrol Cutter, State of the Art | Chuck Hill’s CG Blog (chuckhillscgblog.net), I do see that I said, “Recently the Commandant mentioned the possibility of a requirement for an Arctic Patrol Cutter. This was the first time I had seen official mention of something less than a full fledged icebreaker for arctic patrol.”
Lately we are seeing the Russians Russians Building Missile Armed Arctic Patrol Vessel | Chuck Hill’s CG Blog (chuckhillscgblog.net), Norwegians Photos: Norway’s Coast Guard Jan Mayen-class ice capable OPV | Chuck Hill’s CG Blog (chuckhillscgblog.net), Danes “New Naval Vessels For Denmark” –Naval News | Chuck Hill’s CG Blog (chuckhillscgblog.net), and Canadians “INSIDE LOOK aboard HMCS Harry DeWolf” –Video | Chuck Hill’s CG Blog (chuckhillscgblog.net) building new classes patrol ships designed to operate in the Arctic that are under 10,000 tons.
Of all the countries with land, waters, and EEZ above the Arctic Circle, the US is the only nation that is not.
@Bill Smith, this is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping to provoke. (Note you got your districts confused. D14 is Hawaii and Western Pacific. D17 is Alaska. I can understand why, “Nobody Asked Me, But . . . Rename the Coast Guard Districts”–USNI | Chuck Hill’s CG Blog (chuckhillscgblog.net))
@Chuck – I think you are right!!! Upon looking at your list, it was definitely the 2011 article that resonated in my head! Having never been West of District 2 / District 8, I am very confused with the Pacific Area districts! ☺️
@Bill, Sorry, you never got out West. I had a “well-rounded” career at least geographically, 9 years on the East Coast, 2 and half years on the Gulf Coast, and 10 and a half on the Pacific Coast. My oldest had crossed the continent five times by the he was 12. Ended up homesteading 7 years in Alameda.
During an ALPAT we got diverted and ended up seizing a fishing vessel and taking it into Midway. Led to the sudden realization that there was an awful lot of Ocean the Coast Guard was not pay much attention to.
As I have noted, 47% of the US EEZ is in the 14th District, not to mention the EEZs of the three Compact of Free Association States that more than equal the size of the US EEZ in the 14th District.
I am working on an updated post about Arctic Patrol Cutters.
Given the USCG’s exposure to modern icebreaking technology in the Polar Security Cutter Program, I’m fairly certain the future USCG medium icebreakers will feature a diesel-electric power plant and a twin-azimuth propulsion system.
The icebreaking hull geometry could actually be derived from the CCG MPV which is a further development of a proven design with considerations for open water performance and seakeeping. The other potential “reference ship” I can think of is — believe or not — the French luxury cruise ship Le Commandant Charcot which has one of the best general-purpose icebreaking bows ever designed.
It’s difficult to speculate main dimensions, displacement and propulsion power without knowing — as Chuck said — what the USCG wants to do with the ASCs. A rough starting point would be 15,000 tons and 30,000 horsepower i.e. similar in size to USCGC Healy. I sincerely hope they don’t plan to transit the St. Lawrence Seaway with this one…
As for ice class, I’d put my money on Polar Class 3 (“Year-round operation in second-year ice which may include multi-year ice inclusions”). That would place the ASCs slightly but not excessively below the PSCs in terms of hull strength.
Given the conditions off Alaska, a roll damping system is a must. I wouldn’t even rule out retractable fin stabilizers to improve the operability although I’m not sure if the USCG would like them.
I’m fairly certain the general layout of the vessels will be more akin to the PSCs and perhaps USCGC Healy than the CCG MPV; a polar icebreaker rather than a buoy tender. I’m inclined to agree with Bill regarding ATON; it would be challenging to arrange a buoy/well deck in such a large vessel because the freeboard would be either too low (very wet deck) or too high (difficult to perform buoy work). Anyway, you are far more qualified to speculate USCG’s potential “wants” and “needs” for the topsides than I am.
Thanks Tups! I’m going to read up on ice classifications.
How do the fin stabilizers retract, and how does that work with a reinforced and heavily plated icebreaking hull? Seems like fins would be weak, and even with a retracting mechanism, a hatch would still be a weak spot?
In retracted positions, the fin stabilizers are stowed in a recess and flush to the hull:
https://www.fincantieri.com/globalassets/prodotti-servizi/sistemi-e-componenti/sistemi-e-componenti-navali/fin-stabilizers_mp-03-14.pdf
While fin stabilizers are not common in icebreaking ships, at least the Argentine Navy icebreaker Almirante Irizar and the French cruise ship Le Commandant Charcot are fitted with them. They are of course only used in open water and retracted once the vessel sails into ice.
@Tups, Thank you, sir! That PDF is very informative. There is definitely a lot of logic to including stabilizers, given the sea conditions in the Bering Sea and other polar environments, especially when combined with a hull shape optimized for icebreaking, which might be more susceptible to rolling. It makes a tremendous amount of sense.
Are you aware of any reports of complications, even when in stowed position, with these systems in ice on the Almirante Irizar or Le Commandant Charcot?
I am not aware of any complications having arisen from operating in ice with the fin stabilizers in stowed position. However, I can understand the reluctance to install such exposed equipment on icebreaking ships. A well-designed internal roll damping tank is also very effective and also works when the vessel is stationary.
The Coast Guard icebreakers, unlike the Russian and European icebreakers make long open ocean voyages. I see that as a good reason to consider retractable fin stabilizers as long as they can be tucked away before they encounter ice.
The future CCG MPVs will be propelled by Steerprop’s Contra-Rotating Propulsor (CRP) units:
https://steerprop.com/articles/propulsion-package-mpv
These are mechanical thrusters (i.e. electric propulsion motor is inside the vessel’s hull and geared to the propellers) with — as the name implies — two propellers rotating in opposite directions.
https://steerprop.com/articles/ice-going-crp
The company claims 10–17 % higher net thrust compared to a single pulling propeller.