Eastern’s OPC Concept Model

Our friend at NavyRecognition has sent some photos of a model of the Eastern Offshore Patrol Cutter taken at Sea-Air-Space 2014. They have daily coverage of the event you can access here:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/sea-air-space-2014.html

Click on the photo for a larger view.

IMG_4128

IMG_4129

IMG_4131

IMG_4132

IMG_4133

IMG_4134

IMG_4135

(Late addition, duplicating a comment)
One interesting feature I see on the model is that there appear to be four permanently mounted fire monitors, two on the hangar roof O-3 deck and two between the mast and stack on the O-4 deck.

Looks like the two ROSAM Mk49 remote controlled .50 cal. are just forward of the Mk38 mod2 and somewhat restrict its field of fire. I would rather see one or both of them forward, either on the roof of the bridge or on the O-2 deck forward of the bridge and above and behind the 57mm. Actually I would like to have a second Mk38 mod2 forward even if in lieu of the remote .50s. (There are crew served .50s on the bridge wings.)

It appears the SLQ-32 ESM antenna are inside the rails on top of the Bridge. I think they should be outside the rails but that is probably a simple change.

20 thoughts on “Eastern’s OPC Concept Model

  1. One interesting feature I see on the model is that there appear to be four permanently mounted fire monitors, two on the hangar roof O-3 deck and two between the mast and stack on the O-4 deck.

    Looks like the two ROSAM Mk49 remote controlled .50 cal. are just forward of the Mk38 mod2 and somewhat restrict its field of fire. I would rather see one or both of them forward, either on the roof of the bridge or on the O-2 deck forward of the bridge and above and behind the 57mm. Actually I would like to have a second Mk38 mod2 forward and would in lieu of the remote .50s.

    It appears the SLQ-32 ESM antenna are inside the rails on top of the Bridge. I think they should be outside the rails but that is probably a simple change.

  2. Well, a cutter that someone could run laps on.
    I agree the two remote control mounts need to be forward and the two fire monitors on the top of the hanger somewhere else. They are in the line of fire of the 25mm. Of course, this could be fixed by reinventing the wheel and building a raised gun tub.

    • Bill, good points. One Mk38 and two ROSAMs were in the Specs but Don’t think it should be too hard to change them for two Mk38s.

      I’m sure they want the fire monitors to be able to bear on the flight deck but it they put Mk38s on the two aft corners of the hangar, they could have the fire monitors nearer the centerline.

  3. I; am trying to figure out if those are containers under the flight deck aft. Looks like there might be 20 foot units on either side of the door on the main deck below the flight deck.

    • Yes there is a requirement for ice strengthening (not icebreaking). The New Zealand OPVs that this design appears to be based on are also ice strengthened and also have the bulbous bow.

    • The new offshore patrol vessel currently under construction in Finland can break ice up to 80 cm thick even though it has a bulbous bow.

  4. I think we may be falling prey to out-of-scale modelling. This is a model for display at a conference. The fire monitors are there to show they exist (in the plans) and theoretical location. I guarantee they’re not going to be 8″ or 10″ 10,000 gal-per-min Stang monitors. They won’t stick up so high as to inhibit the firing arc of the Mk.38.

    Check the photo of Bertholf at the link below, and you’ll see from the water surface perspective of real monitors and a real Mk.38 (look at top edge of picture), that there is very minimal interference.

    • Of couse that is not a Mk38 mod 2, that is a Phalanx which is taller. There is also the concern for interfering with the firing arcs of the Mk49 ROSAM.50 cals

      • Of course, my mistake.

        I’m not sure the muzzle height above deck is far different between the CIWS and a Mk.38 though.. Probably pretty close. Depending on the class, CIWS are often put on short platforms to improve their field of fire. The same could be done here for the Mk.38 mount. Nothing wrong with the idea of putting 2 Mk.38s nearer the corners, except for price & availability. (Isn’t the Navy still using a pool of Mk.38s to be mounted onto ships being deployed and being taken off ships returning? That would make me curious if 25 extra Mk.38s would be available?) I’m confident those monitors on the model are definitely out-of-scale. Now, the .50-caliber ROSAMS will be a problem as shown. Again, I’m sure if the Eastern design is built, adjustments will be made with them. Probably moved forward.

  5. Another observation: Only 2 Mk7 inflateable life rafts per side? Is that a suggestion of manning levels, or am I now reading too much into a trade show model?

  6. Pingback: Ireland’s New OPV | Chuck Hill's CG Blog

  7. Pingback: More Info on the Eastern OPC Proposal | Chuck Hill's CG Blog

  8. Pingback: Australia to Build OPVs | Chuck Hill's CG Blog

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s