Offshore Patrol Cutter Concepts

This is in response to Bill Smith’s suggestion, ” I’d love to see 1 page with each of the design’s made public so far shown.  It would make a great comparison of the concepts.”

No new information here, but it will, hopefully, make it easier to find some of the information already presented, including some that might have been given only in the comments.

Unfortunately the information is very limited. There have been almost no specifics provided for any of the designs. Only Vigor has chosen to discuss the details of their design, with its Ulstein X-bow. It is reported to have a length of 328 feet, a beam of 54 feet, a draft of 16.5 feet, and a max speed of 22knots. That is a relatively large ship. I do like its volume and the reconfigurable space they included. Their concept is discussed here: “Unconventional Contender for the Offshore Patrol Cutter”

Vigor Offshore Patrol Craft 01

VT Halter has partnered with DCNS. A concept that accompanied their announcement is discussed here: “VT Halter Marine and DCNS to Partner for OPC Bid.” Their proposal appears to be similar to the ships DCNS has designed to fulfill a Malaysian requirement for six “Littoral combat Ships.” Those ships are reported to be 107 meters long, a 16 meter beam, and 2,750 ton displacement.

VT Halter Marine, Inc. (VT Halter Marine), a subsidiary of VT Systems, Inc. (VT Systems), today announced its partnership agreement with DCNS to submit a proposal to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the design and construction of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC). VT Halter Marine will be the prime contractor and DCNS will be its exclusive subcontractor for the OPC platform design.

The only information we have from Huntington Ingalls is this photo from a DefenseNews.Com report.

Bollinger seems likely to use a Damen design, as they did for the 87foot WPBs and the 154 foot WPCs. We have seen artists renderings of the Netherlands Navy’s Holland Class OPV in Coast Guard colors, and we have also seen a rendering of an upgraded Bollinger shipyard with a Holland Class under construction, but so far I have seen no announcement of what design they will actually build. I have always felt the Holland class was a bit more ship than the Coast Guard could afford for a class that emphasizes “affordability,” and is expected to cost about half of what the NSC costs. Damen has a large portfolio of designs that they discuss here: Of the designs presented the 2400 and 2600 tons designs appear closest to Coast Guard specifications but even they would likely have to be modified. There is a rendering of a cutter in Coast Guard colors on the last page.

Marinette Marine‘s concept is reported here: As part of the Fincantieri Group it appears they may be offering a modified version of the Italian Navy’s Commandante Class patrol vessel. An obvious difference is that the Marinette Marine concept has the bow raised a deck. No specs were provided for OPC concept. Below are the specs for the Italian vessels which would almost certainly have to be enlarged to meet the range and seakeeping requirements of the OPC program.

  • Crew: 80 total including 8 officers
  • Overall Length: 88.4m (292 ft)
  • Length at Waterline: 80.3m (265 ft)
  • Beam: 12.2m (40.26 ft)
  • Draught: 4.6m (15.2 ft)
  • Full Load Displacement: 1,520 tons
  • Armament: 1×76 mm, 2x25mm
  • Speed: 25 knots
  • Range: 3,500 nmi
  • Helo deck and hanger for NH90 (essentially the same size as an MH-60)

Eastern has published a conceptual rendering as a single page pdf discussed here: It is limited to some drawings depicting the interior and one exterior viewed as if the observer was in an elevated position off the ship’s starboard bow.

So far I have seen no information about the proposals from NASSCO or Bath Iron Works.

33 thoughts on “Offshore Patrol Cutter Concepts

  1. VT Halter may have changed their design. This picture was in one of their recent print ads. Sorry about the quality but its a cell picture.

    Here is the Marinette Marine design as well…

    Here is a hidden picture for Bollinger (their booth page from the last international work boat show):

    I also cannot find anything for BIW or NASSCO either.

    • Thanks, the VT Halter design does look very different.

      The Marinette Marine design appears to be same ship as in the earlier illustration.

      The Bollinger illustration was the one I referred to with Damen’s Holland class being built in their yard,

  2. I would have expected MMC to use a design from their owner’s portfolio. Did we decide that Eastern’s design was in fact from STX Marine Canada?

  3. Ok I got to ask the regular quesion: Does this design have any possibility for USN service?

    And I would note that IF there was a Navy buy-in, the Congress might agree to funding a combined buy EARLIER than now is.

    Of course, bringing the Navy onboard might be the death of the program?

      • I think if the Navy joined in you would see a boat designed by committee, creating an okay boat for each but not great for anyone. The cost would also increase beyond the funding the Coast Guard has at this point. Really the OPC is a simple ship.

      • What future Role would the future OPC and the NSC would play if the US Navy asked the USCG to deploy the OPC and NSC overseas.

    • The Navy is reaching a point where I think they will be reexamining the LCS program. At the very least the OPC program should give them some ideas for alternatives. At best it may offer an alternative design for an LCS 2.0 after funding the 24 currently built, building, or optioned. The last of those are funded in FY2015, just about the time the OPC design matures.

      There is no requirement in the OPC program for hosting modular loads like the LCS mission modules, but some of the parent designs seem to already incorporate carriage of containers. The Vigor design incorporates a reconfigurable space and the Damen 2400 and 2600 ton designs both include areas for containers. If the design ultimately does include flexible space for mission modules, crossing over LCS modules may be a natural development.

      • The US Navy is starting to realize the LCS is a spectacular failure in the Making. It’s why they are slowly realizing their mistake and maybe considering dropping the program or backing out.

      • while not a huge fan of the lcs nicky, the nav is committed to it. the only possible change I see maybe after the first 24 is them committing to a single design and then maybe only after pressure from congress. never quite understood why after they compared the two versions when they were built they didn’t pick one. probably something to do with keeping the industrial base. still must drive the supply types nuts.

      • I was a never a fan of the LCS anyway. The LCS is liken to be a Joke that your uncle would play with people. I think if the LCS is here to stay, just use them to replace the aging cyclone class PC and build a high end frigate.

      • The first 24 LCS are likely to be used primarily to replace the MCM vessels. Compared to the old MCM vessels, they are an improvement in ability to defend themselves, but if they are even equal as MCM vessels remains to be seen.

  4. Chuck I think the USN will attempt to replace the Perrys with the LCS for sure. I think the LCS-2 class can support MIW missions because of its flight deck size and internals. AS to to the other mission modules the Navy will assign some to each class just to see how they work out……
    THEN about five years from now the Navy will see how badly they screwed up and scramble to find a medium sized surface combatant of ANY type. At which point in time the OPC might be far enough along to be a candidate for LSC replacement ship? Maybe?

    • I think the US Navy is slowly realizing their mistake in the LCS. Just look at the fiasco that is going on with LCS-1. My thinking is that LCS-1 would replace the Cyclone class PC and LCS-2 will replace the Avenger class MCM. They will eventually start looking at a Multi Role Frigate to replace the OHP, and LCS.

  5. Pingback: OPC Builders Field Narrows–Unofficial | Chuck Hill's CG Blog

  6. Pingback: Preliminary and Contract Design Contract Winners for OPC Announced | Chuck Hill's CG Blog

  7. Pingback: Thanks for a successful 2014 | Chuck Hill's CG Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s