H_K provided this Link (http://www.offshore-patrol-security.com/cms-assets/documents/59716-108335.damen-opv-presentation-portsmouth-2012.pdf) in a comment on an earlier post, “Damen to Build New Patrol Boats for Bahamas”. It is a 47 page pdf of a “Power Point” presentation on “Building the Ultimate OPV.”
I thought perhaps it deserved a more prominent place in the Blog, so I will repeat my comments here:
Things I noted:
—8000kW propulsion system suggests 22 knots max speed, the minimum rather than the “objective” 25 knots which would have required closer to 15,000 kW.
—Nice to see several alternatives for how to make the required horsepower.
—Looked like there was provision for accessing the open area under the flight deck by lifting soft patches in the flight deck. This may mean that the ship could use mission modules in the form of containerized loads like those being developed for the Littoral Combat Ships.
—The only clues that this may not actually be a design proposed for the OPC contract are (1) the fact that the artist’s concepts don’t include the 25mm Mk 38 mod2 mount specified, and (2) the accommodations section does not include accommodations for the numbers specified in the RFP.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
Why not, Damen already has their foot in the door with the USCG on the 87 ft Marine protector class coastal patrol boat and the Sentinel-class cutter. It’s only a matter of either taking the Holland class OPV or the SIGMA Corvette/Frigate design. The other option is to the Royal New Zeland Navy’s Protector-class offshore patrol vessel and modify it to USCG standards. The other is buy into Navantia’s Spanish BAM ship design with USCG modifications.
Bids are already in. I just heard the OPC program is to be delayed to make room for NSC #8. So probably no contract until at least FY2016.
Happy to see funding for NSC #8, but, “here we go again…” CG needs being delayed, so the service has to make elderly designs soldier on…
My bet is that Damen will get the Contract. Here’s more on Damen’s OPV product
http://www.damen.nl/en/markets/~/media/nl/Documents/Products/Datasheets/OT/OPV/DAMEN_OPVfolder_sept%202012.ashx
Back on topic: do you think that’s real or disinformation? I’m very unimpressed. Looks like an enlarged 154′ and barely (or not quite) meets the requirements??
It will be interesting to compare the proposals in detail some day…
A couple of additional thoughts,
Despite being almost 8 times larger, this vessel has less horsepower than the FRC.
Second, The requirement to shelter and feed 500 immigrants on the main deck or above outside the superstructure is a pretty difficult requirement and the open area below the flight deck along with the apparent ability to take mission modules may be an answer to this requirement.
I don’t think this is disinformation, but I also don’t think this is written for the USCG. Putting your design in USCG colors is a sales tool.
I’m betting this is VERY close to Damen’s actual submission, not just a pretty CAD image in USCG colors.
This design differs in almost every detail from previously released images of their OPV 2400 & 2600 design concepts. Why bother showing a substantially modified derivative of their existing design concepts, if it wasn’t the real deal?
I like it.
– Lots of volume thanks to the fat hull and extra decks
– Smallish (~83m/270ft waterline, ~2,400 tons by the looks of it), quasi-civilian platform: probably quite cheap to build
– Excellent sea keeping by the looks of it… bridge positioned well aft
– Nice touches like the flight deck hatches for 20′ containers and the waterline boarding platform
– The 4x 2,000kw option is probably to meet the CG’s separate engine room requirements, the twin diesel and hybrid options are probably cheaper alternatives being offered by Damen
All-in-all looks like a balanced combination of safer design choices and out of the box thinking.
Here’s the product data sheet that the Damen OPV that they are offering to the USCG http://www.damen.nl/en/markets/~/media/nl/Documents/Products/Datasheets/OT/OPV/2600/555800OPV%202600DS.ashx
From what I saw, it looks like a combination of the two and provides flexibility. The propulsion looks like it can keep up with the US Military Sealift command or the Amphibious ready group.
This may well be the design Bollinger and their partner Damen have offered, but there are several reasons I don’t think this presentation was intended specifically for the Coast Guard.
–There is no mention of either ice strengthening or ballistic protection which were included in the OPC specifications.
–No reference to space for Ship’s Signals Exploitation Space or SSES
–Referred to civilian construction standards, rather than CG modified Naval Ship Rules as required for the OPC
–The reference to helicopter types not in the Coast Guard
–Lack of some equipment included in the Coast Guard equipment–i.e. SLQ-32, radar fire control system.
–Gun looks more like a 40 mm than a Mk110 57mm. No Mk38 mod2 25mm.
–Reference to using “marines” in the boarding party and “divers” rather than rescue swimmers for SAR evolutions.
–Accommodations list was well below the Coast Guard estimated requirement.
Actually, other than the repositioning of the boats from the superstructure to relatively far aft under the flight deck and some cosmetic changes like the slope of the superstructure forward and shape of the bulkheads on the upper superstructure, this looks very much like the OPV2400 they have been offering in the advertising Nicky has found. The flight deck hatches for 20′ containers and the waterline boarding platforms were also included on that design.
It was interesting to see that they were building their OPV 2400 design for Vietnam.
If they do use the OPV 2400/2600 designs as the basis for their OPC submission, that will mean a length of 90-98 meters (295-321 ft) and a beam of 14.4 meters (47 ft, substantially more than the 378s).
If you look at the OPV 2600 that Damen is offering to the USCG on top of the OPV 2400. I think the USCG should go with OPV 2600 over the OPV 2400 and modify to USCG Standard
I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth, but when H_K posted this in the discussion on another thread, I thought there was an implication that the first 46 pages were merely a general sales brochure, and it was only the drawing on the last page that was the OPC for USCG?
Yes, it’s definitely a general sales presentation, not a USCG brief. But my theory is that most of the images are lifted from Damen’s OPC design, rather than from their older OPV2400/2600 designs. That kind of shortcut often happens – salespeople just use the latest images at hand, which in this case are very likely to be of the OPC.
I think this is the OPC platform being submitted, but probably not the final design, as Chuck has noted multiple discrepancies… mostly in terms of detailed fitout and terminology. Maybe it’s a preliminary submission to Bollinger, who then “Yankifyied” the rest?
Certainly could be.
Chuck, it’s more than a few cosmetic changes IMHO… some are functional. Doubt they would do those just for s**** and giggles without a real design project behind.
Enlarged bridge
No more bridge wings
Shorter helo platform
Funnels moved aft
Enlarged (mission?) spaces below bridge
Revised mast arrangement for 360 radar coverage (and likely provision for a larger radar)
Cosmetically, all the superstructure slopes have changed, the port hole locations, the funnel shapes, the rear mission bay is a bit different etc.
Some USCG specific equipment is certainly missing, but it looks pretty “real”.