The Coast Guard’s fleet of patrol vessels is in trouble. It is wearing out faster than it can be replaced. This is not a recent development, and the problem will not be solved soon. But for the moment, let us engage in a bit of “willed suspension of disbelief” and consider where the Coast Guard is planning on going, by comparing the “Program of Record” with the fleet of the not so distant past, as reported in my 2000-2001 Combat Fleets of the World.
(You might want to look back at “Is the Fleet Shrinking” for a broader look at what the fleet whole fleet looked like in the past.)
The fleet of 2000/2001 looked like this (displacement in tons full load, comparing only the larger patrol vessels):
Class Displacement x Number = Total Displacement
378s 3050 tons x 12 = 36,600 tons
270s 1780 tons x 13 = 23,140 tons
210s 1050 tons x 16 = 16,800 tons
Alex Haley 2929 tons x 1 = 2,929 tons
Storis 1916 tons x 1 = 1,916 tons
Acushnet 1746 tons x 1 = 1,746 tons
110s 155 tons x 49 = 7,595 tons
Total 93 vessels, 90,726 tons
(Three 180 food WLBs that had been converted to WMECs were also decommissioned about this time.)
The Program of Record Fleet looks like this (I’m using what I believe will be a close approximation of the OPC’s displacement):
Class Displacement x Number = Total Displacement
NSC 4500 tons x 8 = 36,000 tons
OPC 2500 tons x 25 = 65,500 tons
FRC 353 tons x 58 = 20,474 tons
Total 91 vessels, 121,974 tons
The current fleet is ten vessels smaller than the 2000/2001 fleet. Three NSCs and I believe now two Webber Class FRCs have been added, but three WHEC 378s, Acushnet, Storis, two WMEC210, and at least eight 110s are no longer in service.
Things are going to get worse before they get better, but, as the Coast Guard has been saying, if it does get built, the program of record will be a significant improvement.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
Chuck – your comparison highlights that old saying – there are lies, d*mn lies, and statistics. Yes, when you compare the program of record with the current fleet in the manner you have, it doesn’t look bad – almost the same number of hulls and more tonnage in the POR than the current fleet.
That said, how is tonnage even relevant? Isn’t capability a better measure of comparison between the POR and the current fleet than tonnage? The current fleet has/had 44 cutters with MEC endurance or more. The POR will have 33. And while the FRC will be more capable than the 110 WPB, its 5 day/2500 nm endurance is a fraction of what the older MEC’s were capable of. Yes, the NSC/OPC cutter fleet ship to ship will be more capable than the cutters they replace, but in the end analysis, the overall capability isn’t as rosy as you suggest. And that is assuming the CG gets all the cutters it is asking for……
If you think I’m optimistic, I’m not. Until it is funded the “Program of Record is a fantasy fleet. But if it is built, it will be a capable fleet, at least as good as what we have now but with different strengths and weakness.
Near home port, the Webber Class are going to be huge improvement over the 110s in almost every way, and in some respects a improvement over the 210s as long as you are under shore based air cover, and don’t need the endurance and or seakeeping. They are faster and better armed for Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security (of course giving the 210s the same weapon would be an easy upgrade I think we ought to do–it brings a lot of other benefits as well).
The OPCs should be individually superior to any of the current WMECs–better speed, seakeeping, sensors, communications, aviation facilities. They approach and may in some respects may exceed the capabilities of the 378s.
I’m not a huge fan of the NSC but they are superior to the 378s.
On the other hand. As I’ve talked about before,
if we don’t get a substantial increase in the ship building budget, these ships will come on line so slowly that we will have much reduced capability for at least a decade, probably two, the Bertholf may be overage before we finish the program of record, and in addition because of the inefficiencies of a slow build rate we will have paid far more for the program than we should have.
I don’t doubt that the NSC, the OPC and the FRC are more capable than the cutters they will replace. The problem is that as capable as the FRC is, it won’t have the range to match the 270 and 210 MEC, so that most of the time, the FRC will be limited to operating close in because they don’t have endurance and or seakeeping capacity of the cutters they are replacing.
Do you really think the Webbers are going be operating in the Bering Sea in the winter, or in EastPac or the deep Caribbean? And as far as the close inshore PWCS mission goes, just how many terrorist vessels have we interdicted off our shores since 9/11? The CG is building a grand fleet of 58 highly capable patrol boats to counter an expected onslaught of al Queda terrorist watercraft, even though there is no credible evidence that this threat is going to materialize any time in the near future. If there is going to be a successful terrorist attack launched against the United States from the sea, it’s more likely to be carried into port in a container buried deep in the stacks of a 3000+ TEU container vessel. Just how is the Webber going to deal with that threat effectively?
I realize that “it is what it is” when it comes to recapitalization of the surface fleet, but by any logical comparison, the Program of Record fleet will not be as capable or as versatile as the fleet it replaces.
@Anonymouse
Question for you, what’s your take if they combined all the features of the 210, 270’s into a compact OPV version of the NSC or a larger version of the FRC
I think the point here is that less hulls with lower endurance still means less ships underway. The FRC are amazing replacements for the 110’s but don’t replace any of the MEC’s in endurance. OPC is great just need a few more hulls to ensure better coverage.
What kind of features would you want in an OPC from the legacy 210’s and 270’s. The three things I like to see in the OPC, is High degree of Automation, using off-the-shelf technology & have the sea legs to keep up with an Amphibious ready group.
It does look like we could take the crew and outfit of a Webber class and put them all in a larger (600 to 1000 ton approx 200 foot) hull and have a relatively cheap medium endurance platform that would be effective for those missions that did not require organic helicopter. It still might be able to land an H-65 and operate UAVs.
The Webber already has more than twice the horsepower of the 210s. Even in the larger hull it should be good for at least 22 knots.
Patrick hit the nail on the head – fewer hulls with lower endurance still means fewer ships underway.
The FRC is a much better WPB than the 110′ class, but it isn’t a WMEC.
This is what I see in regard to comparing the fleet of today with the Program of record.
The eight NSCs and the first four OPCs compared to three NSCs and 9 WHEC378s, looks like an improvement to me, but you might call it a wash.
The next 21 OPCs compared to 13 WMEC270, Alex Haley, and 7 WMEC 210. I would definitely consider that an improvement.
40 Webber Class compared to 40 WPB 110, a very large improvement.
The remaining difference is 18 Webber Class 154 foot WPCs compared to 7 WMEC210s. Different people will evaluate the trade-off differently depending on their priorities, but at any rate it will not be a vastly inferior force.
Unfortunately, it will likely be a couple of decades before we reach the “Program of Record,” if ever, and that is going to be a problem. On that, I think we can all agree.
Here’s the German Navy’s Braunschweig class corvette and the Youtube Video
It’s in German
Here’s the Royal Moroccan Navy’s SIGMA frigate
Nice videos. I did not include the Braunschweig class because it is relatively small. Same size as the 270s and does not have a hangar. It has also had some problems in German service.
The SIGMA built for Morocco might be modified, but in present form it’s boat handling arrangements don’t seem very good and the two very large diesels are probably not very economical of fuel.
I think the SIGMA that is built for Morocco might be the pick, but it would to swap engines for a CODAG and have to have the sea legs in order to keep up with an Amphibious ready group. The one the Royal Morocco Navy is getting is a Light Frigate variant which would be perfect for the OPC.
The SIGMA, with 24,000 HP and a speed of 28 knots, are already fast enough to keep up with an Amphibious ready group, and three knots faster than the OPC objective, and the specs rule out Gas Turbine engines.
Rather, I think they need something that would give a more economical loiter or slow cruise. That might be a four engine system or a hybrid system like on the Holland or the BAM.
Don’t get me wrong, between the BAM, SIGMA and Holland, I would bet the SIGMA would be a perfect choice for the USCG as a OPC. Though they would have to swap out the engines for CODAG or CODOG system. For the SIGMA, I do prefer the Morocco variant over the Indonesia variant. It because the Morocco variant has a hangar for the Helicopter or UAV. I think the SIGMA combines the features of the 270 & 210’s.
The question really is though, can the SIGMA meet the requirements for boat and helicopter operations in Sea State 5?
That’s why the ships were consider buying such as the Holland, SIGMA and BAM, should have one sent here for a test cruise. Even take one each out for a spin in a sea state 5 area.
I am not sure I care if the Coast Guard can keep up with the Navy. Our mission and package is different we are not much use to the Navy with our present weapons set-up. We don’t bring much offense or defense compared to a navy ship. We should look to retake back our missions for example no FG or other navy vessels doing drug patrols for us.
@patrick Don’t we still have that program called the Africa Partnership Station, Part of the US Military’s United States Africa Command. The reason why the Future OPC should have sea legs to keep up with an Amphibious ready group is because in the event that the US Coast Guard is asked again to work on Africa Partnership Station. We would have an OPC that has the capability of crossing the Atlantic & Pacific with enough sea legs left to keep up with an Amphibious Ready group. Also in an event of an all out war, the OPC should have the capability to be up armored up and upgraded to war fighting corvette.
@patrick
The Indian Navy has an OPC that has the capability of being heavily armed and upgraded to light frigates. It’s called the Sukanya class patrol vessel. It’s a capability that the US Coast Guard should consider as well for their future OPC.
First off, with our already large shortage and requirement in the United States it would not be wise to send more ships overseas. The second point is the only time they would truly need to utilize USCGC in frigate war would be in larger scale combat and the only major threats would be other nuclear countries of which have avoid major wars thus far. Beyond that the upgrade they would really need is offense power because offense is defense. I think by considering every little possibility we keep ramping up the cost.
We are short on ships, aircraft and cutters. It’s why if we had the same line of credit and budget that the US Navy has. We can conceivably get a brand new fleet of ships, cutters and aircraft. with left over room to pay for more personnel. we can sell our old ones to countries like the Philippines who desperately need a new fleet. Maybe we can push congress to make all drug seized money and left over money from the US navy go directly to fund the US Coast Guard.
Another interesting point is the point class of patrol boats were about 79 total. The replacement 87 footers were built to about 73. Once again 6 less.
Yes, but 26 of the Point Class were left in Vietnam in the 1969-70 time frame. Given that the last 9 Point class were commissioned in 1970, 3 years after the previous deliveries, one might conclude that the post-Vietnam need for that class was 62 hulls, not 79.
@Nick, I see you’re still having fanboy fantasies about what you think the Coast Guard should be. If the OPC is built as a heavily armed full fledged frigate it would not be suitable for what it’s going to be built for……….Coast Guard missions. Once again, the Coast Guard doesn’t need to try to be the Navy! You don’t have a clue about ship building, Coast Guard requirements and missions, or what it means to serve and live on a Cutter(it’s a “cutter” not a “ship”). One more thing, Coast Guard Admirals don’t walk around with a “credit card” just to purchase any vessel that they think is “cool”.
@Guest Coastie , I see you don’t get it. We have to have OPC’s that can be heavily armed, if the NEED ever arises. For example, what If crap flairs up between China, Taiwan and the Philippines. What are the odds that we ever get dragged into another global conflict. The fact is you want to have an OPC that has the capability to be heavily armed, but we may never use it though it maybe nice to know that we have such capability should the need ever arise in a not to distant future.
OK what are the odds of the Coast Guard getting dragged into another Global conflict?? Please tell me since you seem to know. We haven’t had a “global conflict” in 67 years and only 2 in history total, but you post as if global conflicts pop up all the time. Coast Guard cutters have only been in involved in pitched battle at sea in one conflict since WWII, that was the Vietnam War which ended for U.S. forces 39 years ago. If a war breaks out in the South China Sea the U.S. Navy is already deployed in the region and would be the “front line” naval force, not the Coast Guard. Any conflict in that region will have us in a support role, no way are cutters could or would take on the Chinese Navy. You keep pushing these “armed to the teeth” designs because you think they are cool and because you think anything built or designed in the U.S. sucks. The OPC has to have the range and flexibility to perform a wide range of missions operating independently focusing on LE and SAR. Armed to the teeth would make it redundant to a Navy surface combatant and not very good for Coast Guard missions. The NSC is definitely under armed and ASW capability would be nice, but part of the reason it went away is that it was expensive and required constant training for the 378’s to stay proficient in tracking subs, something that our many missions made impossible. The Sonar Tech rating is gone, to reestablish the rating in the Coast Guard would be costly at a time when we are fighting to get funding to replace our ancient cutters. And we still wouldn’t be as effective as the Navy at ASW. Modern diesel subs are deadly silent and require very sophisticated systems to track, funding for which we’ll never get. Even if the 378’s still had their original ASW suites they would not be able to track a modern diesel sub much less kill it with a lightweight short ranged torpedo. The cutter would never hear or see the sub that killed it. I don’t think complicating things by fantasizing about Coast Guard cutters being “armed to the teeth” is realistic and it’s definitely not going to get the OPC built faster or in the numbers that we need. We need new cutters now, and we need a lot of them with limited funding. So please Nick, educate me on your “vast knowledge” of naval warfare and seagoing experience, other than surfing the internet.
Nicky, Unless they arm Coast Guard ships with missiles it won’t matter. Our ships minus modern missiles systems will not be very useful in an offensive war. The only possible role would be if we had a sonar set-up but that may help us in the drug war also. Beyond those with nuclear weapons tend to avoid conflict with each other hence most of the wars for the last 60 years have been 1st world nation vs. third world nation.
@Patrick
I was thinking more in line of what if we end up in a next global conflict that drags the US Coast Guard in. What are the odds that will ever happen. It would be nice for the next OPC and even our fleet to have Hull mounted Sonar. Maybe the latest and greatest in Automation.
I always enjoy reading threads where people with no seagoing experience lecture those that do have such experience, and then for good measure, make disparaging comments about what they know. 😉
When did cutterman become such prima donnas? Instead of wasting key strokes discrediting other posters– perhaps you should use your (presumably) vast seagoing experience and time to develop some constructive ideas of your own. We are all capable of evaluating the merit of posts on our own.
Blogs like this are often referenced by policy makers and agency officials for thier willingness to challenge conventional thinking. Information Dissemination is a prime example of how amateur analysts can influence the generally accepted way of thinking at high levels. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/raymond-pritchett/
You are right – we can all judge the ideas of other posters on our own. I simply don’t think people who have never served afloat are in a position to speak knowledgeably about what the Coast Guard needs to replace the legacy cutter fleet.
YMMV.
Since this post was done, a number of things have changed. There are to be three more NSCs. The OPCs turned out to be 2,000 tons larger than my estimate. There will be six more FRCs than included in the program of record. This pushed the tonnage total to over 187,500 tons more than double the displacement of the benchmark fleet, with a total of 100 vessels vs 93 in the benchmark fleet. Unfortunately, attainment of this future fleet has been pushed even further into the future.
Pingback: Old Fleet vs New Fleet, by the Ton, Revisited | Chuck Hill's CG Blog