Offshore Patrol Cutters–Are They Affordable?

Posted on by

Earlier the GAO advised that the “Deepwater” program was unachievable, now we have this from the Coast Guard leadership. Nationaldefensemagazine.org reports:

“The Coast Guard does not have a firm date for when it will release a request for proposals for the final piece of its ship modernization program, the Offshore Patrol Cutter. But it does know that building an affordable ship is of great importance….”

“‘We are dedicated to meeting those minimum requirements. We think we can get within an affordable range using commercial practices’ rather than methods used to build combatant ships, Korn (RAdm. John Korn, Chief of Acquisitions) said. Among the initial industry proposals submitted were ideas to reduce costs, he added.”

(I hope that statement does not mean we are totally abandoning the intention to generally comply with American Bureau of Shipping, Naval Vessel Rules–the ABS NVR.)

There are two things this report seem to suggest.

  • There will be further delays in the delivery of these ships, and
  • The Offshore Patrol Cutters are likely to be less capable and robust than previously envisioned.

Conceptual Rendering of the OPCDisclaimer: The conceptual renderings posted on this website are for artistic display purposes only and do not convey any particular design, Coast Guard design preferences, or other requirements for the OPC.

The procurement is already well behind previously published milestones, which would have seen the first ship funded in 2015 and delivered in 2019. These milestones included releasing a draft “Request for Proposal” in April-June 2011 and a “Pre-Solicitation Conference” thirty days later. In reality this does not necessarily mean substantial delays. The timeline for planning is still relatively generous.

Some limits on the design are already planned to keep the price of these ships down. Quoting further:

“The Coast Guard has already made some decisions as far as what the ship will not feature. Gas turbine engines and a system to launch small boats from the stern are two ideas that have already been scrapped, he said. Other Coast Guard ships may have these capabilities, but they would be too costly for the OPC, Korn said.”

I’m not sure if there is a need to further reduce the cost of the OPC or if they are just selling the idea that it already incorporates reduced cost, but it does sound like they need to go further. Earlier I commented on the draft specification. The two engineroom requirement with a 50/50 split in power available seemed particularly arbitrary and unnecessary, although some form of redundancy would seem wise. A diesel electric or hybrid system would appear to offer the possibility of long range, better fuel economy (particularly at low speed), low noise, reduced manning and training requirement, and lower maintenance costs, as well as improved survivability.

An Integrated propulsion and ship service electrical system similar to the one on the Lewis and Clark class T-AKEs (and most cruise ships) could permit a design with only four diesel engines (one forward, one aft, and two in the main machinery space). With azipods providing propulsion, including a drop-down unit in the bow, and the ability to use generators forward and aft, as well as those in the main engineering space for propulsion, the ship would have three compartment redundancy for both propulsion and ship service power while minimizing manning and watch standing requirements. Looking to the future, integrated power makes large amounts of power available throughout the life of the ship. This power can be reallocated to sensors or to accommodate future combat systems.

The Coast Guard has had a long history of using diesel-electric propulsion including the 180 WLBs and has already used azipods in the Mackinaw.

In seeking to make these ships affordable, there are some things that should not be compromised.

  • Boats–We need at least two and they should include at least one 11 meter. This not only makes the ship a more capable law enforcement vessel. 11 meters seems to be the emerging size for unmanned and optionally manned surface vessels that are likely to fill a variety of roles in the future including surveillance, force protection and security, mine countermeasures and ASW.
  • Aviation–We need the ability to support an MH-65 and two UAVs, and the same facilities should also be able to hanger a Navy MH-60s for contingencies. Space that can serve other purposes in peacetime should be identified to support embarked Navy helo including magazine space.
  • Speed–To be credible both for law enforcement and as a potential warship, we need a speed advantage over the average merchant ship and we need to be able to maneuver with underway replenishment ships and amphibious warfare ships. To me this means a minimum of 24 knots.
  • I don’t think this is in the current plan, but these ships should have provision for accepting mission modules, like those being developed for the LCS. In addition to Navy systems, this will give the Coast Guard the flexibility to develop their own modules–e.g., class rooms, holding cells, research facilities, command posts, disaster recovery, or hospital rooms.
  • The ship needs volume to meet the heavy weather operational requirements, but it also means there will be room to accommodate changing mission requirements. In the long run, this will save us money. Reading between the lines, it appears that the seakeeping, which also drives the size, is one thing the Coast Guard will not compromise on.

The program is at a crossroad, and to some extent, so is the service. Is the Coast Guard a military force or not? If we don’t consider armed conflict in our planning, we might as well be civilians. We can dumb down these ships to little more than 270s, maybe less in some respects, or we can make a pitch a better, more capable ship that can contribute to the national defense, at the same time they better fulfill genuine needs in peacetime.

At a time when the Navy is likely to be cut, while naval challenges are growing; spending a tiny fraction of what additional Navy ships would cost, to make sure these are credible low end combatants,  makes an awful lot of sense, particularly when, mostly, all we are only really talking about is providing a little extra space, that also enhances their peacetime utility. The nexus of a desire to strengthen naval forces while cutting costs is a perfect rationale for funding units that can do double duty.

Related:

 

 

15 thoughts on “Offshore Patrol Cutters–Are They Affordable?”

  1. ABS has seveal sets of rules, but the US Navy issued their NVR rules for ship construction. Both could have been called out in the OPC design process, BUT the last time a commercial ship and warship set of construction standards were incoporated into a ship procurement was the LCS. You see what happened then?

    I am not sure that linking the OPC to naval expeditionary rqmts is a good enough reason for calling out NVR in the OPC design process, just my opinion. I would bet you the USCG could get a less expensive OPC with some naval systems added by skipping the NVR?

    Reply ↓

  2. Scrapping stern launch capability seems like a false cost savings to me.

    The whole point of OPC ought to be to build the minimum displacement ship that can meet some fairly stringent seakeeping and sprint speed requirements, with other design factors being secondary. That implies a minimum hull length, and positioning the helo deck as close as possible to midships. Putting two RHIBs in the stern (like the French did on their Gowind OPV) seems like a win win. Not sure how moving the RHIBs topsides and midships will really reduce hull length – might just make for a fatter, slower, more expensive hull.

    Electric propulsion and Azipods aren’t cheap, so I can’t see how either could be in the picture. If cost is the driver, I’d go for a shaft alternator that can double up as an electric motor for loitering. Would have the added benefit of cutting the required reserve generating capacity. Not redundant enough for a military role, but better nothing.

    Reply ↓

    • I know it is heresy but we could actually get by with only one Azipod at the stern (of about 20,000 HP) and one much smaller drop down unit at the bow (say about 1,500 HP). The ship would be far more maneuverable than a twin screw ship and still have the redundancy of about 10 knots loiter/get home power just on the bow unit. Most ships in the world get by just fine on only one shaft, as have the FFGs.

      I’ve been assuming the ship is going to be about 90 to 100 meters in length (295-328 foot), so something like the french Floreal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flor%C3%A9al_class_frigate) or an updated 327. Putting the boats amidships would not necessarily influence the shape of the hull since combined beam of the boats is considerably less than the beam of any likely hull form. The 210s can do it and they have a beam of only 34 feet and 1919 vintage four stack destroyers that had a beam of less than 31 feet were converted to destroyer transports that carried four LCVPs during WWII. The LCVPs were 11 meter (36′) boats with a beam of 3.3 meters (10’10”).

      The Coast Guard did not simply say that a stern launch was not required, they went further and specifically ruled it out, which makes me think there must be more to it than simply minimizing the length of the ship. Apparently the stern of the NSC is a bit crowded when you try to rig a tow. The arrangement also required two separate after steering compartments.

      Reply ↓

  3. You never realize how much cutters use their fantails until you try to stick two small boats and a notch back there. Stern launch isn’t so easy to do above 6ft seas on the WMSL and its a realtively stable platform. The OPC is going to be more lively and narrower. A stern launch will compromise too many other capabilities and you can’t launch in heavy seas.

    Don’t get me wrong, the stern launch is much better for CPB’s and FRC’s as compared to a davit launch but even with that there is a big trade off with space.

    Also, 11M RHIBS really aren’t so great. The major reason is training. These optimally crewed cutters require alot of training. It takes a good deal of time to qualify a coxswain/crew on one boat type. When you add a second boat type you double the training time. Keep in mind they are considering manning a vessel akin to a 378′ WHEC with the crew of a 210′ WMEC. The added capability of a bigger boat does not outweigh the cost in training. It also increases the required spare parts onboard and requires twice the training for maintenance personnel.

    Reply ↓

    • Good point regarding mixing boat types. My main concern is that we retain the option of going to an 11 meter boat. We could get around the training problem by having two Long Range Interceptors (LRI) instead of one LRI and one 7 meter, but the current plan is two 7 meter boats, essentially the same we have on the 378s now.

      Reply ↓

  4. My question, How come we can’t go Off the Shelf and something that the other navies and Coast Guards around the world are using. I think the perfect OPV would be something that the Chilean Navy is getting such as the this one http://www.fassmer.de/index.php?id=190 Which is the 80 m Offshore Patrol Vessel and they have the 90 m Offshore Patrol Vessel as well http://www.fassmer.de/index.php?id=191
    The other option is to go with that the Royal Dutch Navy is getting such as the Holland class offshore patrol vessels or go with the French Navies Gowind class corvette which comes in the Corvette version.

    Reply ↓

  5. Off the shelf might be cheaper, but it usually means you give up capability. One size fits all would be a great idea if every Navy and Coast Guard had the same mission set. They don’t, which is why your idea will never be adopted.

    Reply ↓

  6. Pingback: Daily Summary for November 6 2011 : Coast Guard Digest

  8. Here’s my question if the LCS is built more like a cutter instead of a warship, how come the US Coast Guard is not jumping on the bandwagon and buying into the LCS for their OPC. From the looks of things, the LCS dose look more like a cutter instead of a warship and looks like a lite frigate instead of a heavily armed frigate like you see in European navies. If the Navy wanted a LCS, they should have looked European navies for design ideas instead of inhouse.

    Reply ↓

    • Nicky, I was not saying that the LCS is built like a cutter, I was saying its problems are because it is not built like a cutter. These remarks apply more t the Lockeed Martin built ships like LCS-1 but also apply to a lesser degree to the LCS-2 types (the trimarans). It has very poor range, and even then the economical cruise speed is very low. The requirement for speed has resulted in the machinery spaces being very crowded and difficult to service. It also has inadequate accommodations for additional personnel.

      Conceptually, depending on what mission modules are installed, the LCSs can perform either anti-submarine warfare (ASW), Mine Counter Measures (MCM), or Antisurface Warfare (ASuW) against swarms of small poorly armed high speed craft like the Iranians have deployed in the past. Of these three missions, extreme high speed only benefits the ASuW mission. Meanwhile the short legs and low cruise speed hurt the other two missions. And all 55 ships are not intended to do the ASuW mission simultaneously. They are only building 24 ship sets of modules to support this mission, along with 24 MCM and 16 ASW ship sets.

      Worse the ASuW mission is in real trouble. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/11/07/the-navys-lcs-missile-problem/

      Plus the Iranian treat is rapidly changing, adding longer ranged and more powerful weapons that cannot be countered by short ranged weapons. This also tends to make the extreme speed less relevant.

      Reply ↓

Leave a comment