Selection of at most three shipbuilders to develop proposed contract designs for the Offshore Patrol Cutter is expected soon. MaritimeMemos is reporting the field has already been trimmed down to five.
“The unofficial word is that the Coast Guard has set the competitive range for the OPC program and has thereby eliminated at least three of the competitors – Marinette Marine, NASSCO and Vigor Industrial. If this is the case, that leaves five yards still under consideration for up to three Phase I contracts – two from the “Big Six” – Bath Iron Works and Ingalls Shipbuilding – and three from the “Second Tier” – Bollinger Shipyards, Eastern Shipbuilding and VT Halter Marine. My money’s on the three second-tier yards. September 6,2013.“
If you want to review what has been published about the conceptual designs, you can see them in an earlier post here: “Offshore Patrol Cutter Concepts” Be sure to read the comments, there is more info there. I still have not seen any information on concepts from Bath or NASSCO.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
I think Bollinger would get the contract, and it would depend on what design, whether the Holland class OPV design or the SIGMA Corvette design.
Actually I think the Bollinger entry will be much closer to the new Damen designed, Vietnamese Coast Guard vessel http://www.bairdmaritime.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14011:new-patrol-ship-for-vietnam-marine-police&catid=73&Itemid=65
It is 2,500 tons full load, 90 meters long and 14 meter beam. 21 knots. The Holland is probably to large and expensive. The SIGMA probably would not meet the seakeeping requirement.
This ship is a variation of the Damen OPV 2400 seen in this presentation:
Click to access 59716-108335.damen-opv-presentation-portsmouth-2012.pdf
The last slide is probably pretty close to their offered design.
The way I look at it, I think endurance is something that the Holland OPV has and something the US Coast Guard is seriously looking at.
@Nicky, The Holland certainly appears to be a seaworthy design, but in its current form, its endurance (5000 miles) is only two thirds the required 7,500 miles at 14 knots.
If you look at it, the Holland OPV is a proven design, that is in service Royal Netherlands Navy. I would rather the US Coast Guard go with a proven design than an unproven design.
If we never used an unproven design, we would still be sailing the Pinta, the Nina, and the Santa Maria
But then again I think the USCG needs to go with a proven design that’s currently in service right now.
It saddens me to hear Vigor may be out of the race, their XBow design looked like the perfect answer to some of the crazy seas the CG operates in, especially the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Maine.
Completely agree. Rather than what’s best for the mission, could they be worried about appearances and wanting to “look” more military?
Bollinger being allowed o bid on this as well as the FRCs is a joke. They build 123s with weak hulls on purpose to save money on steal, putting the men and women of the Coast Guard at risk, post 9/11, and not only is no one held accountable they just keeping getting more work. I am not sure who is more pathetic, Bollinger for doing what they did or the USCG for letting them get away with it. One thing is for sure. The USCG sure told everyone how to treat them going forward. (This as well as the USCG not holding ICGS accountable for the poor condition the fleet is in via the Deepwater contract mission performance guaranty)
That culling, if accurate, has me scratching my head. I can understand leaving in one of Bath and Ingalls in to be the high-end (high cost) option but why both? Why keep Eastern in with no track record over MM and Vigor who do? Why eliminate NASSCO which is the most affordable of the “Big Six” and is linked with the excellent South Korean yards? Considering the dire need for these hulls and the difficulty in holding onto the funding, I’m going to be pretty disappointed if petty politics has already grabbed control of this program.
Another excellent point! The decision-making going on has me head scratching… Of course this is all speculative and unofficial, so we must wait and see.
Why eliminate NASSCO? Because what you actually wanted was a shipbuilder with the political lobby to pull this program off.
Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein do not care about NASSCO.
The USCG isn’t looking for affordability. Their looking for their program to be perceived as affordable.
It will be a bigger catastrophe than Deepwater.
Looks like potential contractors are getting another opportunity to tune their offers:
http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/newsroom/updates/opc090913.asp
“The Coast Guard received proposals on Jan. 23, 2013, and began technical, management, past performance, and price evaluations for Phase I. Evaluation of revised proposals is expected to support an award of contracts for OPC preliminary and contract design in the 2nd quarter of fiscal year 2014.”
that means they are waiting three to six months longer than they have to to make a decision.
totally biased reply here, but spend the extra cash and let bath build you a boat that will go the distance. sure as heck not likely to happen, we are going to have to build boats that will have to go another 40 odd years. bath maybe pricey, but sons o guns know how to build a quality product. like I said, totally biased, but not far off the mark.
I agree with Eric, Let BIW build the boats, because Bath sure knows how to build a Naval vessel and they sure do last for a long time
I would never say Bath doesn’t make good stuff, but they aren’t the only ones who can build high-quality ships. Someone here at Chuck’s Blog mentioned in a different thread that Vigor (Todd) has the best welders in the ship-building industry, if not the best welders, period, in the US… Marinette Marine has also handled CG construction needs with high quality and satisfaction too. Bath is good, but certainly not the only good choice, and perhaps not the best from the list…
What do you think of this concept for an OPC design that BMT came up with.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1246
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/bmt-design-portfolio/bmt-venator-minor-warship/
Actually this was the shi ptalked about here: https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2013/09/03/trade-offs-in-patrol-vessels/
I don’t think it is a contender for the OPC, since I don’t know of any partnership of one of the eight yards that bid with BMT. I like the modular approach, but I think it may be a bit large for the OPC since the Coast Guard has put virtually all the emphasis on “affordability.” I hope that means they are looking at life cycle costs, but I’m afraid it just means that they want it cheap.