“Cdr. Salamander” commented on an interesting development. It seems that America’s most prominent ship designers are offering the Navy a conceptual design for a diesel powered “light frigate” that is not too far off the proposed specs for the Offshore Patrol Cutter. (Note: The illustration appears to be an early artist concept of the Australian DDG rather than of the proposed light frigate for which the design has not been made public.)
The post is based on a San Diego Union Tribune article posted on signonsandiego.com written by Gary Robbins,
“Rick Biben, the company’s president and chief executive, said Wednesday, “We are not competing with any existing design. We’re looking at what the Navy might need in the future, and we’re working to expand our portfolio of ships.”
“Biben stressed that light frigate is not meant to be a competitor to the troubled LCS. Earlier this year, Freedom experienced a crack in its hull, alarming members of Congress. More recently, the Independence was reported to have “aggressive” corrosion in and around its propulsion system.
“The problems led a bipartisan group of six U.S. senators to ask for a formal review of LCS. And Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, has suggested that it might be smart to rebid some LCS contracts because the ships will cost at least twice as much as originally planned.
“Eric Midboe, vice program of program management at Gibbs & Cox, said Wednesday that the light frigate would be a “conventional, shock-hardened ship” whose hull would be similar to those seen on modern Coast Guard frigates.”
While this may not be intended to “compete with any existing design,” it is pretty obvious not everyone is happy with the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, and they may be thinking that when a new generation of Navy leadership takes over, they may be looking for alternatives.
From the CG perspective, if the Navy does decide to build something like this, it looks interesting because a lightly armed version is close to the OPC concept. Combining CG and Navy programs could result in significant economies of scale with a buy of 66 or more ships. (See Related: My Grand Plan Navy and CG Work Together ) There would be training and logistical advantages. The Cutters could be made readily adaptable to credible war time roles providing additional justification.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
Chuck are you going to put the “light frigate” specs into a table comparing it to OPC?
They don’t give much in the way of specifics except that the “light frigate” is approx 3,500 tons, diesel powered with a range of 7,000 miles and has a “strike length” VLS systems.
“Gibbs & Cox of Arlington, Va., says it has produced concept drawings for a roughly 400-foot steel-hull, twin-propeller, diesel-powered light frigate that would be capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles as well as Standard III’s, missiles that can be used for ballistic missile defense. The ship also would feature sophisticated phased-radar.”
3,500 tons is at the high end of what is being considered for the OPC and larger than I think we can reasonably expect unless someone recognizes the value of spending a bit more to give the Coast Guard credible warships. The range is less than the Coast Guard hoped for, but more than the range of the 210s and probably more than the range of the 270s (6,370 at 15) at anything other than a slow cruise so it is something the Coast Guard could work around.
The CG version would not necessarily have the phased array radar, that has been a big ticket item, but the latest smaller AN/SPY-1F and K versions may not be that expensive and having fewer moving parts may be more maintainable than rotating alternatives. I understand the NSC already has much of the Aegis software.
The CG version also would not necessarily have the VLS, but there would be little reason not to include it. The vertical launchers themselves are not that expensive. It is a question of what you put in them. ESSMs (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile) would give the ships very credible AAW self defense.
Chuck,
The US Navy and US Coast Guard should have gone with a light frigtae instead of the LCS crap when the price started to climb up. I think for the Light Frigate/ OPC, the US Navy and the US Coast Guard should have gone jointly with either the:
Formidable class frigate
La Fayette class frigate
Valour class frigate
Milgem class corvette
Braunschweig class corvette
They could even gone shopping for the design and blueprints in Europe. Have it built by US Shipyards in America, using the blueprints and design rights they brought from Europe.
The Braunschweig class has been pretty much a failure. The others seem to have done reasonably well but if the proposed “light frigate” is built, it will be superior to all of them. Gibbs and Cox is a highly respected design firm, probably the most experienced in the world. If you read the links in Cdr Salmander’s post you will see that they have been involved designs for Canadian and European programs as well a the very successful American Burke class DDGs.
In fact if built as described it would probably be the most powerful surface warship in the world under 4,000 tons.
Chuck,
I think the foreign designs would have worked here as well. Even the Formidable class frigate and the Valour class frigate would have made a perfect NSC and a perfect light frigate as well. I don’t doubt Gibbs and Cox for designing good frigates such as the Perry Class, but I think we need to see what others can come up with. I would likes to see some stealth features on the Light frigate as well. Also the Formidable class frigate and the Valour class frigate would be under the 4,000 ton limit.
Nick, seriously you need to get over your obsession with foreign built and designed ships. Your have a fetish with foreign ship designs but you know nothing about working, living or serving on a ship. Just because it’s designed and built overseas doesn’t make it better. The LCS is a waste of funding, we need a new design frigate type vessel to replace the Perry class FFG. The Navy and Coast Guard should have worked together on the NSC design.
Be careful at criticizing anything he says, there are plenty here who cover for anything he says, no matter how stupid or embarrasing.
More on topic, there are circles inside the Navy advocating the NSC design for a third type of LCS and are waiting out the pending retirement of ADM Roughhead to see if something might change with a new CNO.
Oh yea, the their have been people advocating that the US Navy buy a Navalized version of the NSC. I think the US navy and the at the very least the US Coast Guard come up with a Joint light Frigate for both services and come up with a common frigate for both services. I’d make sure it includes Automation and the latest and greatest in technology.
Nobody asked you anyway, nor would you have a clue.
Nobody ask u anyway
@Guest,
Let me ask you this, when was the Last time America had the best and brightest in Naval design and Naval Architecture. Our Naval design talent went to Europe and Asia and look at what those navies are sailing. They are sailing stuff that America could and should had a long time ago. Now, were scrapping at the bottom with the Naval design talent. At least with European navies, they designed ships with a high degree of automation and minimizing the number of crews needed. They Incorporated the latest and greatest in technology and automation.
If think Foreign designs can’t work in America. Just look at the Sentinel class FRC. That’s not an American based Designed ship. That’s a Foreign designed ship that the US Coast Guard brought the rights and license to build in America. If we can do what were doing with the Sentinel class FRC, surely then US Navy and the US Coast Guard can Jointly buy the rights and license to build a foreign based frigate design in America.
Nicky, I have a question for you. Have you ever actually served aboard a warship of any kind?
@ Nick, The FRCs are having hull design/fab issues. Construction of the FRC’s have been slowed until they can undergo and complete sea trials. Again, you know nothing about ship design. Just because you surf the internet and like looking at pictures of foreign built warships doesn’t mean that you know anything about ship design. You don’t have a clue. Just because it’s foreign designed and built doesn’t mean it’s better.
+1
Hey Nicky, how about Nimitz-class supercarriers. And the new Gerald Ford class supercarriers. I mean, they’re nothing to really brag about in ship design, or power, or range, or stuff. I hope you all understand the meaning of sarcasm.
Might want to consider another Damen product (same folks we bought the design of the Sentinel Class from) offers a Sigma Class Corvette
http://www.damen.nl/PRODUCTS/SIGMA_-_CORVETTES.aspx?mId=8632
Currently built for navies in Indonesia and Morroco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_class_corvette
Has most of the design requirements of the OPC with alot of USN light frigate (littoral) potential too!
Economy of scale could make this a winner and we have already a history with Damen design process and approval!
I like the Sigma Class Corvette, but I would go with a version of the Sigma Class Corvette that Indonesian Navy is getting called the Sigma 10514 which is the longest of the Sigma Class Corvette and it has the 76mm Main Canon, 12 MICA vertical launch air defence missile, MM-40 Exocet block II, Torpedo, Phalanx and Smart-S MK2 radar system.
The other option is to go with France because they are building the Gowind class OPV and they have some impressive specs as well. I think the Gowind® Combat would be a choice for the US Navy and US Coast guard as well.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gowind_corvettes/
http://en.dcnsgroup.com/naval/products/gowind-family/
SIGMA CLASS CORVETTE: does 28 knots using two 8.9 MW diesels.
LCS-1 does 15 knots using two 6.48 MW diesels for propulsion.
LCS-1 is around 3,100 tons without a full load.
SIGMA CORVETTE is 1,700 tons.
It’s really hard to compare apples and oranges.
BTW, LCS-1 class has two 36 MW gas turbines which push the 3,100 tons up to almost 40 knots without using either of the little 6.48 MW propulsion diesels.
Didn’t see COST in this brief contrasting between Corvette and LCS.
I didn’t think you were still a RhodeIslander. Good to see you are still commenting.
Chuck, you’re right. In February, my wife and I finally sold our R.I. home and moved into our new ‘retirement’ home in the great state of Florida. I’m attempting to turn over a new leaf now that I’m finally fully retired (again). Trying to stay off the internet as much as possible and take up “normal” Florida retirement type activities, especially golfing again. And biking. Gotta think of a new “handle” if I’m going to post any future comments. Keep up your great site. Bill-the-ex-Rhody
Perhaps the telling thing is that when the Dutch went to build their own large patrol ship, they rejected the SIGMA in favor of the much larger, slower Holland Class, lightly armed but with remarkably sophisticated sensors, and surprisingly armor protecting selected areas.
http://www.seaforces.org/marint/Netherlands-Navy/Offshore-Patrol-Vessel/Holland-class.htm
welcome to my new home in FLA
More on the LCS program’s problems here:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/30/serious-problems-continue-plague-navys-littoral-co/
(My previous comment was blocked – not sure why – so hopefully this one will be approved)
The problem with LCS is that it’s a rather mediocre jack-of-all trades… and people are still dreaming of a common light frigate design for the USN and USCG? Amazing! The speed and systems requirements have (almost) nothing in common, for a start.
The OPC requirement is big enough that there should be no need for commonality with the USN. IMHO, commonality is a recipe for disaster and a cost-inflation death spiral. If the Kiwis can build 4 bespoke OPVs for $80MM a pop, and the French a prototype OPV for $30MM, then why can’t the USCG do the same? I’m not at all advocating for a foreign design, but for foreign design (best) practices.
Same thing goes for specs. If the Kiwis, French and Spaniards can make do with 30-35 ship’s crew (plus detachments) and 21-30 days endurance, is it smart for the USCG to limit its options by shooting for 60 days endurance and 90 crew? Maybe the best replacement for the 210ft and 270ft cutters is in fact a hull in the same size and displacement range as the ships it is replacing… Has anyone given this a thought, rather than going for an expensive light frigate travesty with bells and whistles bought in half the hull numbers?
So can someone please explain why the USCG can’t live with a 2,600t OPV in the same size range as the Spanish BAM? What about a 1,800t OPV like the Kiwi Otago? And what of a 1,500t OPV like the French Gowind? (The smallest OPV on the market with a helo hangar, 4 RHIBs and 8,000nm endurance)
P.S. I will fully admit to knowing to knowing nothing about living on a USCG cutter.
Looking at the Kizi, Spanish and French OPV designs, the baseline specs for the OPC should be something like:
LOA: 280-310ft
Disp: 1,500t-2,600t full load
Speed: 21-23kts on 5.6-10.8MW diesels
Endurance: 6,000-8,000nm (21-30 days)
Ship’s crew: 30-35
Passengers & detachments: 30-45
Mission systems: 5-10t helo or UAV with hangar, 2-4 RHIBS or USVs, air/sea search radar, light/medium gun and basic countermeasures
Cost: $50-$120MM
Would the USCG jump in joy with these specs? Probably not. But it’d still be an improvement over the WMECs, without any gold plating.
P.S. Hot-off-the-press pics of the very unconventional French OPV on sea trials here: forum dot keypublishing dot com/showthread.php?t=109823
H_K, Nice photos: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=109823
(You should have been able to paste in the link.)
Always nice to see the neighbors’ new vehicle.
For those not familiar with the project. The L’Adroit is the first example of what a French firm (DCNS) hopes will be a family of similar ships. DCNS built the ship on their own dime and have leased it at no cost to the French Navy so as to get the official seal of approval that they hope will be a selling point.
What a deal?
Thanks Chuck for posting the full link – it wasn’t working for me.
Three design elements from the French OPV that I think merit some serious consideration:
– 360 degree integrated bridge and combat information center – very manpower efficient
– Long hull with modern, low-flare, extended bow (not technically wavepiercing, but almost) – efficient at high-speeds (with knock-on effects on propulsion size, hull volume and cost) and probably just as good for seakeeping as a more conventional short, fat, high-flare bow
– Passive stern ramps for RHIBs – much simpler than the problematic LCS setup. May actually work, for once.
Jury still out on the high-bridge. She has passive flume stabilization tanks, but active stabilization fins might be a nice add-on to prevent seasick watchkeepers! Also would be very useful to add a crane.
Actually the bridge looks a lot like that on the 210s, in fact conceptually, this design looks a lot like it could have grown out of the 210 design.
Trying to put your CIC on the bridge really limits what you can do there since, access to the bridge is harder to control and space is limited if the conning officer is going to retain his 360 degree view.
concur with your integrated CIC/Bridge comments.
Several people mention crewing numbers, I’m not against reduced numbers. It makes sense, automated engineering/Aux systems reduce watchstanding requirements, better DC systems reduce damage control crew member requirements, I don’t need 30 people on the bridge to navigate (although I do need the ability to take bearings and ranges and plot a fix on paper even…) But, The only real crew reduction issues that really seem to play are cost drivers. Honestly that has nothing to do with my ability to conduct sustained operations at sea. Cutters don’t transit from point A to point B like a merchant vessel, they patrol looking for problems. I can tell you the difference in conducting the same mission with a crew of 65-70 vs 160-170. Quantity does have a quality. Again, my main point, it seems cost drives crew numbers not the level of ops we will require. Automation etc seem onlyto be used to justify the cost derived number.
Modern design should allow crew reductions and the CG has taken advantage of this to some extent. The crew of the NSC is about 110 while on 378s we commonly had over 150. But part of the difference in the size of the crew between the CG and the countries you mention is a different manning philosophy and different governmental organization. On some of those ships the boarding teams and those that secure the helicopter on deck are not part of the crew they are Marines, fisheries and customs agents or Air Force and would be counted as “passengers” while in the Coast Guard those things are done by crew members.
The other aspect effecting crew size is what do you want the ship to be capable of doing? We could make an over 1,000 ton cutter with good endurance but give it the engines, equipment, sensors, and crew of a Fast Response Cutter. But could it maintain a both a classified and unclas comms watch, be on-scene commander for a major SAR case, launch two boarding parties simultaneously? Going into the hold of a small cargo ship and moving cargo around looking for a hidden compartment can be very man-power intensive. I can see value both in larger numbers of less capable ships and in fewer but more capable platforms. There is also the issue of not just what is optimum for the Coast Guard, but what is optimum for the country, including defense issues, and that is where a common light frigate/cutter starts to make sense.
I’m not sure that Nicky is that far off the mark with his comments re: US naval design ability.
There’s no doubt the large combatants and ‘super’carriers are world beaters – if for no other reason that no-one else has been able to build and operate such vessels for the past decades. However, for the smaller vessels where capability trade-offs and value for money become criteria, there are many better in Europe.
It seems that European and Asian companies have had no alternative to providing innovative designs that have been built on-time and on-budget, as failure to do so would result in doors closing. The military vessels have simply not had the budget to be able to experience the gold plating, mission creep and cost growth that we see in the US. (Aside: this is the general trend, not every foreign ship program is a success. Look no further than Type 45, among others.)
Is it possible that the saviour of the US maritime industry, the Jones Act, has created a false economy where overpriced, second best and old tech is just fine, as there are no better alternatives within these shores?
navark is closer to the point them some others. Here is some observations of mine based on working many ship acquisiton projects with NAVSEA. The USN does not really design surface ships in detail anymore. NAVSEA hires contractors to assist in rqmts definition and general specifications and then puts our an RFP for a shipbuilder to respond to and the the shipbuilder hires a design agent like Gibbs & Cox.
The Navt’s problems start with the rqmts definition phase done in DC by naval officers whose judgement is well….
The LCS problem started with the opertional concept definition and were ascerbated by the peculiart set of specs to meet multiple missions. Then really done in by a srewy acquisition process.
The value of foreign designs is one can pick a proven one before buying it. Lets face it until the G&C light frigate came up, how many US surface combatant designs have we seen RECENTLY? So I would submit that an Analysis of Alternatives for a replacement LCS must include all the designs the work.
Next, a better path to getting warships in general and small combatants that we are kicking around here is for the USN to survey what is out there, buy a design, modify it to fit USN needs, and they COMPETE it. IOW put out and RFP to US shipyards to build ships based on the Navy owned design. IF the folks at NAVSEA do it right, we get good ships, if the shipbuilders build them right we get good ships. Just look at where the USCG has gotten serveral of its cutters in the recent pass. Some worked well some not so well, but they certainly are using a broader spectrum of possibilities.
I don’t think US shipbuilding is inherently flawed, I think the way the USN goes about buying ships is flawed and undully affected by congressional critters (especially those with backyard shipyards).
My start point is that there are inherent differences in the ship design goals or a cutter versus a USN warship. So one design cannot be all things to both services. The LCS proves that too many different missions ends up with at sub-optimal design.
Whether the USCG and USN can cooperate on one ship type has been back and forth so much, I have lost count where the ball is now! The real world problem is that both services need a new medium sized surface vessel and are constrained by the funds available. Just for an economic standpoint, some would say the two have to get together?
BUT that does not mean one design cannot be modified to fit the purposes of both services. In some cases it is just a matter of changing weapons and sensor and other electronic systems. In other cases, things get real costly when one has to bump up speed, endurance, stability, surviability etc.
So if I had time I would work up a table to show as many similar ships to OPC and FFG as possibily work. But I am on two other projects right now and don’t have time.
Several things are happening that allow the cutter/FFG requirements to converge. Diesels have improved to the point that you can have both moderately high speed and good endurance. The Coast Guard is faced with a peacetime ASW problem because of the drug subs. Increasingly the frigate’s most important weapon is its helicopter(s) which the CG also finds useful. The VLS systems have minimal maintenance requirements compared to the systems they replaced and they also are the “Swiss Army Knife” of weapons system in that they can launch a wide variety of weapons for ASW, ASuW, and AAW. (They also have a low profile, so are frequently seen as less offensive than more visible weapon systems.)
Admittedly many of the things you want on a frigate are only “nice to have” on a cutter including survivability, redundancy, and damage stability, but they do make for a better cutter, as well as a useful warship. Building a common frigate/cutter class does not give you a cheaper cutter, but it does give the nation a more capable ship. It also likely reduces the cost of the Navy frigates.
Another way to look at this is, “is there a down side to using a frigate as a cutter,” and there have been some. If they look too offensive, they may be less welcome in countries that do not trust us. In the past the FFG 7 for instance did not have the long endurance we expect of cutters, but again improved diesels may be helping with that. From the Coast Guard’s point of view there are also some disadvantages in using frigates as cutters, in that they require more people to man. They also require additional training and inspections that impact mission availability.
Looking at it from the “country’s” point of view, the question might be asked do we need these frigates for only war or do we also need them sailing around the world with battle groups or displaying “presence” so that they would not be available for CG missions? Do we have a need for frigates perhaps even with an anti-missile capability that need to be kept close to home that might be able to do CG peacetime missions until needed?
If we have some need for frigates in wartime that exceeds those needed for deployments in peacetime, then it would make sense for those ships to be doing CG missions.
There is a mission that will emerge only during periods of extreme tension. Cruisers and Destroyers assigned to ballistic missile defense (BMD) have a limited magazine capacity and even that is compromised by the requirement to have available other types of missiles. They are not able to replenish these at sea, but using cooperative engagement, they can launch and control missiles from other ships in the area, so a frigate with appropriate missiles in its magazines could effectively extend the magazine of a BMD ship, allowing them to remain on station and effectively replenishing them.
Chuck, what you’re advocating sounds awfully like an NSC Batch II. Might as well chuck the whole OPC concept then (forgive me for the pun) and acknowledge that the CG is only going to get a handful of the hoped-for 25 hulls.
If on the other hand the “O” in OPC still stands for “offshore”, not for full-blown oceanic deployment and chokepoint escort capability, then I do believe that a ~2,000 ton cutter with no wartime mission would be both more logical and affordable. At most, the OPC’s only wartime mission would be to fill in for USN combattants in permissive coastal environments (e.g. off Africa or in the Med, against pirates etc), so that the USN could redeploy to where it is more desperately needed. This means “fitted for but noth with” a containerized towed sonar module, SEARAM and countermeasures, with a hangar big enough for an MH-60R and a small magazine for a handful of Hellfires & torpedoes.
Frankly I’ll be pleased if the OPCs are capable of accepting the outfit you describe. Based on information in the GAO report, they still have not decided if they will have an air-search radar.
Going to the light frigate as cutter would require a substantial bump in ship building money because even though they might cost no more than the NSC we would still require at least 25 units. I don’t see it happening unless there is some radical change.
No air search radar onboard future OPC’s ? Not smart at all. The NSC’s have a small, low cost German radar, TRS-3D, that is both a Surface Search radar as well as an Air Search Radar. In addition, mounted inside the TRS-3D antenna, is a modern IFF antenna. That’s a good deal. 3 for the price of one radar mount. A fairly small antenna to boot. For LCS-1 and LCS-3 this German TRS-3D radar was priced somewhat above the $5 million point, depending upon who you ask. Excellent price for a very powerful surface search radar (well over 50,000 watts) that includes sophisticated German auto detect and auto tracking software. If you just consider the fantastic surface search capability of TRS-3D alone, then try to think of the Air Search Radar (both 2-D and 3-D) as kind of a “no cost” freebie. And don’t forget, USCG units out in the ocean really should have IFF ! TRS-3D performance onboard LCS-1 for IFF auto tracking has been excellent. What a bargain: surface, air, and IFF for perhaps around $5 million, but whatever the price, it would be worth even double that price.
I cannot believe OPC’s would be sent to patrol for the next 45 years without a full IFF system ! Another way to think of TRS-3D, is that it is a low cost, full IFF detector/tracker. With a “free” powerful surface search radar and a free 3-D air search radar thrown in gratis ! Already with supply support for Navy and NSC’s. Amazingly, our Navy has to send its LCS sailors to the USCG school in Northern California !
This is too good of an idea for each OPC. A small antenna physically, with 3-in-1 capabilities. All for much less than $10 million. Maybe closer to $5 million. Cost spread over 30 years, too.
Let’s hope CG Headquarters Acquisiton types are not penny wise and pound foolish for OPC’s.
The way it was phrased was (paraphrasing) that the default position was that it would have an air-search radar, but the requirement could be deleted if the impact was too significant.
Now through $30B in Saudi money into the deal:
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/08/saudi-arabia-wants-us-built-fleet.html
Pingback: Gibbs & Cox Designed One of the OPC Contenders | Chuck Hill's CG Blog