Major new US Coast Guard cutter?

[macman]

The US is apparently looking to replace it's complete fleet of Medium Endurance Cutters, & they've put out some very demanding requirements for a replacement, calling it 'The Offshore Patrol Cutter'.

Requirements over previous models:
Higher transit speeds;
Greater Fuel efficiency;
Longer Range;
Better Seakeeping;
Better Command and Control Capabilities;
Affordable;

Leader so far looks to be the very innovative design from the Vigor Group, with it's characteristic Ulstein X-Bow:
Vigor vies for OPC contract with Ulstein X-Bow design
+ a pretty good company video on requirements & their tender
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdxQjfQpuoM&feature=player_embedded"]Vigor's Offshore Patrol Cutter - YouTube[/nomedia]

This is a Norwegian company, but they have large shipbuilding facilities in the US, & from what I can tell, a very good reputation..

This tender looks to be a very important one, as the Coast Guard is an incredibly important, often overlooked part of a nation's defence & security, doing much of the tough day-to-day work of securing the borders & being the first-responders to many major disasters. This is likely to be an increasingly important part of a nations security.

The Ulstein design looks brilliant, & will be interested to see what the competition is...

 

[My2Cents]

Any idea what the requirements are (displacement, speed, range, etc.)?

Be interesting to see how it compares with the LCS.

 

[Sea Toby]

The US is apparently looking to replace it's complete fleet of Medium Endurance Cutters, & they've put out some very demanding requirements for a replacement, calling it 'The Offshore Patrol Cutter'.

Requirements over previous models:
Higher transit speeds;
Greater Fuel efficiency;
Longer Range;
Better Seakeeping;
Better Command and Control Capabilities;
Affordable;

Leader so far looks to be the very innovative design from the Vigor Group, with it's characteristic Ulstein X-Bow:
Vigor vies for OPC contract with Ulstein X-Bow design
+ a pretty good company video on requirements & their tender
Vigor's Offshore Patrol Cutter - YouTube

This is a Norwegian company, but they have large shipbuilding facilities in the US, & from what I can tell, a very good reputation..

This tender looks to be a very important one, as the Coast Guard is an incredibly important, often overlooked part of a nation's defence & security, doing much of the tough day-to-day work of securing the borders & being the first-responders to many major disasters. This is likely to be an increasingly important part of a nations security.

The Ulstein design looks brilliant, & will be interested to see what the competition is...

There are several potential shipbuilders interested and will bid for the large order of 24 Ocean Patrol Cutters. A cutter design of the French Gowind is one of the possible competitors. Another cutter design of the Dutch Holland could be a competitor as well.

 

[Belesari]

There are several potential shipbuilders interested and will bid for the large order of 24 Ocean Patrol Cutters. A cutter design of the French Gowind is one of the possible competitors. Another cutter design of the Dutch Holland could be a competitor as well.

I like the Dutch Holland. Hell it looks better than the Freedom LCS in many ways. Wonder how much it cost? Wouldnt be a front line warship but would be good for presence and other duties not against front line combatants.

 

[swerve]

How much? IIRC the programme to design & build four of 'em cost about as much as designing & building each of the first two LCS.

 

[exported_kiwi]

How much? IIRC the programme to design & build four of 'em cost about as much as designing & building each of the first two LCS.

So would logic dictate the question; why not "downgunned" LCS? Surely, with the modular fitouts on these ships, they'd be more a practical vessel for the USCG in peacetime and when under USN command in wartime, more practical and useful because they can be fitted with differing weapons/sensor modules, depending on the mission. It'd also, hypothetically, make them cheaper if bought with the USN build, no?

 

[kato]

why not "downgunned" LCS?

You can't really give the LCS any less weapons than it's carrying now, otherwise you only have an expensive yacht left...

 

[exported_kiwi]

You can't really give the LCS any less weapons than it's carrying now, otherwise you only have an expensive yacht left...

So you retain the electonics, LAMPS facilities, add lighter weapons like .50 cal and 25-30mm, and possibly torpedo tubes but the rest can be added as needs dictate. This isn't much different to what exists now to my way of thinking.

 

[My2Cents]

So you retain the electonics, LAMPS facilities, add lighter weapons like .50 cal and 25-30mm, and possibly torpedo tubes but the rest can be added as needs dictate. This isn't much different to what exists now to my way of thinking.

If you retain all those systems about the only things you would remove are the 57mm and RAM launcher, if I understand you correctly, and this is supposed to make a huge difference in costs? Or are there some other systems you have in mind to remove?

As for “the rest can be added as needs dictate “, do you honestly think we can expect to have enough forewarning that they can all be recalled in time for what is basically a factory refit to install those weapons in case of a conflict? And, given lead times, those weapons would have be stockpiled to be on hand when needed, so we don’t even get the saving for not buying them.

War has been described as the world’s biggest ‘come as you are party'. You don’t have the option of saying “Wait, I’m not ready”.

 

[exported_kiwi]

If you retain all those systems about the only things you would remove are the 57mm and RAM launcher, if I understand you correctly, and this is supposed to make a huge difference in costs? Or are there some other systems you have in mind to remove?

As for “the rest can be added as needs dictate “, do you honestly think we can expect to have enough forewarning that they can all be recalled in time for what is basically a factory refit to install those weapons in case of a conflict? And, given lead times, those weapons would have be stockpiled to be on hand when needed, so we don’t even get the saving for not buying them.

War has been described as the world’s biggest ‘come as you are party'. You don’t have the option of saying “Wait, I’m not ready”.

Keep the 57mm. I can't see USCG ships needing RAM during peacetime.

Aren't the LCS supposed to be able to fitted with different modules depending on what the particular need may be at the time? If so, why not the USCG ships which'd be, basically, naval ships during a conflict? It's kind of killing a few birds, not just 2, with one stone.

Reduction in costs may come from many similar/same hulls and electronics fitouts as well as multiple module purchasing.
I admit I know little about such things but it makes sense to me. If the USAF can get cheaper aircraft because of very large purchases by not only the USAF/USN/USMC, but other nations (F-35 series), why can't warships be the same?

 

[swerve]

...
As for “the rest can be added as needs dictate “, do you honestly think we can expect to have enough forewarning that they can all be recalled in time for what is basically a factory refit to install those weapons in case of a conflict?

If it requires a factory refit to put some weapons aboard a ship designed for modular weapons fits, then everyone concerned with the design & commissioning of those ships should be keel-hauled, then shot. The Danes had this solved decades ago. They can stick weapons (& some other equipment) aboard in a few hours, anywhere there's a quay & a crane able to lift the modules.

.
And, given lead times, those weapons would have be stockpiled to be on hand when needed, so we don’t even get the saving for not buying them.

True, but there are savings to be made. You don't have all your expensive weapons modules being hauled around & exposed to the weather & vibration for years on end, so they last longer & need less maintenance. You can have smaller permanent ships crews. All the modular stuff is available for use however many ships are undergoing refit or repair. Of course, it'll have its own maintenance cycles, but it's a lot easier to plan them when they're independent of ship cycles. Improved efficiency, reduced cost.

None of this is hypothetical. It's the real experience of the Danish navy.

 

[exported_kiwi]

If it requires a factory refit to put some weapons aboard a ship designed for modular weapons fits, then everyone concerned with the design & commissioning of those ships should be keel-hauled, then shot. The Danes had this solved decades ago. They can stick weapons (& some other equipment) aboard in a few hours, anywhere there's a quay & a crane able to lift the modules.


True, but there are savings to be made. You don't have all your expensive weapons modules being hauled around & exposed to the weather & vibration for years on end, so they last longer & need less maintenance. You can have smaller permanent ships crews. All the modular stuff is available for use however many ships are undergoing refit or repair. Of course, it'll have its own maintenance cycles, but it's a lot easier to plan them when they're independent of ship cycles. Improved efficiency, reduced cost.

None of this is hypothetical. It's the real experience of the Danish navy.

This was my intended point. Thanks for elaborating. I forgot to mention the Danish "connection".

 

[Twain]

If it requires a factory refit to put some weapons aboard a ship designed for modular weapons fits, then everyone concerned with the design & commissioning of those ships should be keel-hauled, then shot. The Danes had this solved decades ago. They can stick weapons (& some other equipment) aboard in a few hours, anywhere there's a quay & a crane able to lift the modules.

Well keel-hauling may be in order then. While it is not a factory refit to change modules, the expected time to swap out modules has gone from "a few days" to "a few weeks". Whether a "few weeks" means 3 weeks or 8-10 weeks (or more) hasn't been clarified to my knowledge. This is all pretty problematic at this point though as they still don't have a single working module to do any testing with.

The LCS may not qualify as medium endurance either, it needs unrep approx. every 9 days.

 

[fretburner]

The LCS may not qualify as medium endurance either, it needs unrep approx. every 9 days.

Is that bad though - that the LCS has much greater endurance than 9 days?

 

[Twain]

Is that bad though - that the LCS has much greater endurance than 9 days?

I think the current medium endurance cutters can go for about 3 weeks without replenishment, so 9 days is not good.

The LCS as a replacement for the current cutters would be a very expensive, underqualified replacement unless they do some significant modifications. Of course that would just drive up the price even more.

 

[macman]

Here's a little more detail on the tender.

The home site for the tender is here:
USCG: Offshore Patrol Cutter

And the Concept of Operations document there gives the greatest detail of what they are looking for.
The intro:

Through its unique set of law enforcement and military capabilities, the WMSM will bridge the gap between the Coast Guard's law enforcement/homeland security mission priorities and the Navy's military defense mission priorities. The WMSM will implement the common vision of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and the Commandant of the Coast Guard (CCG) in the National Fleet Policy.
The WMSM will deploy to support Combatant Commanders (COCOM’s) around the world in low threat environments but is not envisioned to deploy with a Carrier Strike Group (CSG). The WMSM will have the ability to install additional equipment to augment its capabilities if it is required to conduct operations in higher threat environments in support of national security objectives.

The tender has just reached the 'final Request for Proposal' stage, & they are looking for up to 11 ships.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...b21b97a5b99135ce1238d0e6e18&tab=core&_cview=1

 

[My2Cents]

If it requires a factory refit to put some weapons aboard a ship designed for modular weapons fits, then everyone concerned with the design & commissioning of those ships should be keel-hauled, then shot. The Danes had this solved decades ago. They can stick weapons (& some other equipment) aboard in a few hours, anywhere there's a quay & a crane able to lift the modules.

True, but there are savings to be made. You don't have all your expensive weapons modules being hauled around & exposed to the weather & vibration for years on end, so they last longer & need less maintenance. You can have smaller permanent ships crews. All the modular stuff is available for use however many ships are undergoing refit or repair. Of course, it'll have its own maintenance cycles, but it's a lot easier to plan them when they're independent of ship cycles. Improved efficiency, reduced cost.

None of this is hypothetical. It's the real experience of the Danish navy.

The definition of a “modular weapon” is sometimes very vague. The Danish StanFlex system seems to be the only one where they have actually been shifting modules around. Out of curiosity, does anyone know how often move one of the StanFlex 76mm gun modules to another vessel, and how long it takes to install it? That would be the closest comparison to the 57mm on the LCS.

On the opposite end of the scale a lot of the modularity systems appear to be little more than modular construction dressed up as a sales tool – you select a hull then 1 weapon from column A and 2 from column B, etc.– and that is the way it stays until there is a refit.

And not all weapons on a vessel are necessarily ‘modular’. The LCS’s ‘mission modules’ are definitely quick change modular designs, but the standard weapons (57mm, and RAM) do not appear to be.

 

[My2Cents]

I think the current medium endurance cutters can go for about 3 weeks without replenishment, so 9 days is not good.

The time between UNREPs is not directly comparable to total endurance. Besides increasing endurance underway UNREPs allow the ships to keep their supplies topped off, so that the vessel is ready if maximum endurance is required.

The question is how often does a Burke class destroyer or a CVN undergo an UNREP when part of a CVBG? This paper https://www.navalengineers.org/Site...eedings Documents/AD 2009/Papers/MillerMO.pdf seems to indicate that a CVBG would UNREP every 7 days at a normal operating tempo, or every 2 or 3 days in high tempo operations. So maybe an UNREP every 9 days isn’t significant.

 

[kato]

The Danish StanFlex system seems to be the only one where they have actually been shifting modules around.

They don't really shift the modules around modular-style. Each ship is assigned a role for several years and is only switched to a different one on what amounts to a yard refit - mostly because there isn't much in spare modules anyway.

To my knowledge the 76mm is pretty much never exchanged in current layout. This may change with Absalon, which is after all - together with the Patrolships - getting a pool of a number of 35mm CIWS to replace their 76mm guns when on deployment (getting switched back afterwards). The "weapon deck" - upper-deck Stanflex module cage - on the two Absalons to my knowledge has only seen changes with regard to the number of Harpoon modules carried.

 

[swerve]

Yes. But the modularity still allows the decoupling of ship & system maintenance cycles when needed, & relatively quick & easy re-roling when wanted. The rapid switch of modules is rarely, if ever, done in peacetime operations, but it's been demonstrated.

It's just not really needed much in routine peacetime ops.

It is, however, pretty much a perfect fit for what the USN said the LCS was supposed to be able to do.