Note: I have had to revise some of my conclusions about when benchmarks would be achieved. The text below has been changed to reflect the correction.
I have been talking about the OPC for over nine years, and it is frustrating to see what appeared to be real progress toward impressive new ships come apart, but with the Offshore Patrol Cutter program in flux, perhaps it would be worthwhile to look at where we are, where do we want to go, and what the current restraints and limitations are. Maybe there is a better way.
As currently envisioned the last OPCs are not expected to be funded until FY2034 nor delivered until 2037. A lot can happen between now and then.
Where are we?
The current thinking is to provide contract relief for Eastern and allow them to build the first four ships. Meanwhile the Coast Guard will recompete a contract for OPC #5 with options for #6-15.
But even this is uncertain. Congress has 60 days from the announcement (11 Oct. 2019 to 10 Dec.?) to consider the proposed contract relief. If I interpret correctly, unless they take action to deny relief, construction will go ahead. That suggest that denial of contract relief is unlikely, but by no means, are we sure it will happen.
It seems likely we will get four OPCs from Eastern, but even that is uncertain. Really we have no assurance we will get any OPCs at all.
What do we need? What are the constraints?:
We should have begun replacing the WMECs we have now, 25 years ago, so the need is urgent. We can also be pretty sure we need more large cutters (those of over 1000 tons full load) than are currently planned.
Realistically we cannot expect great increases in either PC&I (Procurement, Construction, and Improvement) or operating budget. That means, hopefully, the Coast Guard will get around the $2B/year PC&I successive Commandants have been saying we will need, but probably little or no more, and further, that we should not expect significant personnel increases.
The current plan will provide fewer large cutters than we have now. Eleven NSCs are replacing twelve WHECs and 25 OPCs are expected to replace 29 WMECs. That is 36 to replace 41. In fact if you look back a little further the Coast Guard had even more large ships. Editions of Combat Fleets of the World for the years indicated show that in 1990/91 we had 50 and in 2000/2001 there were 44. The Fleet Mix Study conducted more than a decade ago indicated we actually need an even larger fleet.
The need to rapidly replace the existing WMECs and ultimately expand the fleet, within the constraints of budget and manpower are in direct conflict, particularly when the cutters have become bigger and more expensive and their crews size has, with few exceptions increased.
Replace the WMECs we have ASAP:
The WMECs we have need to be replaced as soon as possible. If the recompete goes as expected, the fourteenth OPC will not replace the last 210 until fourth quarter FY2032. That 210 will be over 63 years old. The last 270 decommissioned will be at least 48 years old. We can only expect that these vessels will have increasingly frequent major machinery casualties. The high number of major casualties that were experienced when the Coast Guard responded to the earthquake in Haiti is only a taste of what we can expect in the future.
The Fleet Mix Study of 2009 showed we needed 66 large cutters to fully accomplish all the Coast Guard’s statutory missions. A 2011 revision reduced the total to 58.
That number was perhaps artificially low because it assumed the “Crew Rotation Concept” would be applied to all National Security Cutters and Offshore Patrol Cutters, allowing an unrealistically high 225 days away from home. We have, to some extent, seen Webber class step up to perform some of these missions, but the need for more large ships is still apparent.
Unfortunately we have not updated the Fleet mix study based on more recent experience with the NSC and FRC. We really need to do that so that we can make more informed decisions and present a better case to Congress.
The FY2019 Procurement, Construction, and Improvements (PC&I) budget was $2,248.26M, of that less than $1.6M went to ship construction and improvement. It is unlikely we will see significantly larger budgets devoted to ship construction, and this includes funding for Polar Security Cutter, in service sustainment, and in the out years WPB replacement, and possibly new buoy tenders. We don’t unfortunately have any comprehensive long term shipbuilding plan that looks beyond five years.
Operating Budget/Crew Costs
Personnel costs are particularly important in overall lifecycle cost calculations. These come out of the operating budget which has actually shrunk in real terms.
The fleet that is being replaced (12 WHECs, 29 WMECs, and 44 WPBs) and the projected fleet, as currently planned (11 NSCs, 25 OPCs, and 64 FRCs) have almost the same total crew count, but it is doing so with the five fewer large cutters. The more numerous Webber class cutters have a larger crew than the 110 foot WPBs, 24 vice 16. Ultimately I expect 64 FRC to replace the 44 WPB110s for an increase of 832 billets. The OPCs will apparently have a crew of about 100, about the same as that of the 270s, but about 25 more than are currently assigned to 210 foot WMECs. Replacing 14 of 210s with OPCs will add about 350 billets. Only the National Security Cutters have smaller crews than the ships they have replaced. My Combat Fleets of the World shows the crew of the NSCs to be 122 and that of the 378s to be 177, eleven NSCs compared to twelve WHEC378s would be decrease of 782 billets.
By my count the Legacy fleet of 85 vessels (12 WMECs when the NSCs started building, 28 WMECs when the OPCs started building, and 44 WPBs when the FRCs started building) required 5,349 billets. (The nominal fleet the program of record supposedly replaced included 29 WMECs and 49 WPBs, would have included another 179 billets or 5,528.) The currently planned fleet of 100 vessels (11 NSCs, 25 OPCs, and 64 FRCs) requires 5,378 billets.
If we are to increase the number of larger cutters while leaving the total number of billets little changed, we would need to trade off some of the OPCs for more numerous vessels with smaller crews.
The first question is, is the OPC, as currently designed, the vessel we still want?
While I don’t think it will happen, in view of the increasing likelihood of a great power conflict, the wisest thing that could happen, is that we replace the OPCs with what ever design the Navy chooses for the new FFG. That would take a massive infusion of cash and manpower, not going to happen.
If we reopen the competition to include other designs built to the same requirements we not only complicate logistics and training in the future, we also probably delay the decision process another year. Looks like the Coast Guard is trying to avoid that. They have a design they like, and once production is underway, it will certainly be cheaper than the NSCs.
Do we want a ship built to different requirements, maybe something like my proposed Cutter X? The Coast Guard came up with the requirements for the OPC, so I have to assume that for at least some missions, we need ships that meet those requirements. (I understand that the first two OPCs will go to Kodiak.) On the other hand, several years ago, Congress asked the Coast Guard if there weren’t missions or geographic areas that did not require ability to conduct helicopter and boat operations in such severe conditions? That question was apparently never answered, as far as I know, but we know for a fact that less capable ships have been performing these missions for decades. We see it in the way the fleet was distributed. Most 378s went to the Pacific where long distances and ALPAT demanded great range and seakeeping. 210s generally went to the West Coast and SE and Gulf coasts where the weather tended to be more benign. 270s tended to based further North in the Atlantic since they were more seaworthy than the 210, if not as capable as the 378s.
We have a mixed fleet of WMECs, perhaps their replacements should be a mixed fleet as well, allowing the more robust OPCs to be used where those characteristics are most likely to be needed, while we also build more smaller, cheaper ship to provide the numbers we need. As before, I will refer to this class, slotted between the OPCs and the Webber class WPCs as Cutter X.
Considering Cutter X, to be significantly cheaper than the OPCs and have a significantly smaller crew, we probably should look to designs that are half the size of the OPC or smaller. That does not mean these ships will be small. In fact they could be larger than any of the existing WMECs, and more than twice the size of the 210s. The 327 foot Treasury class WHECs would qualify in terms of size. Average procurement cost for the OPCs, before the need for contract relief surfaced was $421M per ship. Cutter X should cost less than $250M. Actually it should be possible to build them for less than $200M.
I have pointed to a number of designs that might be considered, but to offer a concrete example, consider the Fassmer OPV-80 design used by the German Police Coast Guard, and the Navies of Chile, Colombia, and Honduras. It can operate and hangar a medium sized helicopter, has two boats on davits and a third larger boat on a stern ramp, and can be armed with a medium caliber gun up to 76mm. The German versions are getting Bofors 57mm guns like those used by the Coast Guard. There is space for two containers under the flight deck. Its crew is 40 or less.
Some of this class have been ice strengthened.
A possible program:
I will offer what I believe to be a possible alternative to the current plan with the objective of replacing the aging fleet as rapidly as possible, ultimately increasing the number of larger patrol ships in the fleet and keeping the budget and manpower similar to what we have been experiencing.
In looking at an alternative program there a number of milestones that might be considered.
- When would we replace all the 210s? At this point we should have at least 26 new generation large cutters (replacing 12 WHECs and 14 WMEC210s). This is currently planned to occur in 2032.
- When would we get to 36 new generation large cutters currently planned? Now FY2037.
- What kind of fleet will we have at the end of FY2037? Current plan 11 NSCs and 25 OPCs.
The proposal is in three parts:
- Proceed with the OPC program as currently envisioned funding one OPC per year through FY2025. In FY2026 and 2027, fund one, rather than two, and halt the program at ten ship with the last delivered in 2030.
- Continue to fund one NSC a year through FY2023, this will give us 15 NSCs, with the last delivered in 2026.
- Start a program for Cutter X in FY2021. Fund construction for the first ship in FY2024, then two ships in FY2025 to 2027, then three ships a year in FY 2028 to 2034 (the last year for the current plan). This will provide a total of 28 ships with the last delivered FY2037.
This breaks down to:
- FY2020 to FY2023 we would fund one NSC and one OPC,
- FY2024 we fund one OPC and the first Cutter X.
- FY2025 to FY2027 we build one OPC and two Cutter X (which should cost the same as two OPCs).
- From FY2028 through 2034 we fund three Cutter X per year (which should cost less than two OPCs).
This is how the benchmarks break down:
- When would we replace all the 210s? At this point we should have at least 26 new generation large cutters (replacing 12 WHECs and 14 WMEC210s). This is currently planned to occur in 2032. In 2028, 15 NSCs, 8 OPCs, three Cutter X (plus 13 WMEC270)
- When would we get to 36 new generation large cutters currently planned? Now FY2037. In 2032, by the end of the year, 38 ships, 15 NSCs, 10 OPCs, 13 cutter X.
- What kind of fleet will we have at the end of FY2037? Current plan 11 NSCs and 25 OPCs. At the end of FY 2037, 53 ships, 15 NSCs, 10 OPCs, 28 cutter X.
At the end of FY2037 we will have effectively replaced the 12 WHEC and the 13 WMEC270s with 25 more capable NSCs and OPCs. The 14 WMEC210 and Alex Haley will have been replace by Cutter X and 13 additional large cutters added to the fleet, 17 more than the current plan.
Even if we did not fund NSCs 13-15, it would only take one additional year to replace the 210s and to reach 36 new generation ships. and we would still have 50 ships at the end of FY2037.
We really need to do a new Fleet Mix Study and we need to follow it up with a long term shipbuilding plan, something Congress has been asking for for years.
We need cutter X more than ever. I might preference something a smidge bigger like a straight up BAM or a cutter based Sa’ar 6. Just enough for a an H-60 if need be.
I’d also throw out a patrol version of the Khareef class corvette.
Yes, lots of possibilities. As currently built, the Khareef is very heavily armed. It is a little bigger than I think we could build for half the price of an OPC and its complement is 100. Does not mean the basic design could not be simplified.
For those who don’t recognize “BAM” it is, Buque de Acción Marítima, a class of Offshore Patrol Vessels built by Navantia. It was the basis for Bath’s OPC bid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoro-class_offshore_patrol_vessel
I would have said River batch 1 or 2 but I needed the hangar.
The Sa’ar 6 is only slightly larger than the Fassmer OPV80, I’m a little surprised it has a hangar for the H-60 since the German corvette it is based on has only an UAV hangar. Would be nice to have the option of upgrading the weapons the way the Israelis are planning to equip it.
Interesting analysis Chuck, I think it’s certainly worth looking into a smaller cutter (between OPC and FRC) in order to more rapidly replace the aging WMECs.
Near the end, you say “When would we replace all the 210s? At this point we should have at least 26 new generation large cutters (replacing 12 WHECs and 14 WMEC210s). This is currently planned to occur in 2032. **** In 2025, 15 NSCs, 8 OPCs, three Cutter X (plus 13 WMEC270) ****.”
Could you elaborate on how we’d get 8 OPCs and 3 Cutter X by 2025? I believe you also noted NSC #15 would arrive in 2026…it seems from your funding proposals that we’d get to those numbers by 2027 or 2028…or maybe I’m just completely misreading the whole thing 🙂
@dvandy. Actually, You caught me. I was looking at when funded rather than when completed. I have corrected the first and second benchmark, and left a note at the start of the beginning of the post. Thanks for catching that.
Are you taking into account that a NSC beyond #12 would probably be a product improvement/Flight II version? And what capabilities that would bring? And FRAM of the earlier NSC since they would have been in service for almost 20 years already?
@ Lyle, Bertholf was commissioned in 2008 so should get mid-life update about 2023, but that will probably be put off until about FY2033. Don’t know of any significant changes in store for the NSCs, good chance the price will continue to drop. I would like to see one used to prototype upgrades we might make to prep them for a major conflict. The first two already had extensive yard periods to address weaknesses that might have shortened their service life.
This says more about the maintainers than anything else that the 210s are still running. Picking up a MMA 210 in 1994 that was supposed to be a ’10 more years’ thing, yet since then they’ve had another major Curtis Bay availability but not to the extent MMA was. Impressive that parts for the ALCOs are still being found, much less keeping the integrity of the hulls themselves.
Makes the jokes we’d make about the WWII boats in the fleet circa 80s-90s seem quaint now as they retired younger (and sturdier hulled) than the current MECs.
It helps that the 210s were relatively simple ships. At one point I read their availability was higher than that of the much younger 270s.
If I were a Congress Critter and knew nothing about ships, I would have to ask myself: If these ships are too old and obsolete for us, why are we giving them to Philippines, Ukraine, and other countries, and how are *they* keeping them in service???
None of these proposed OPVs have a gun larger than a 40mm autocannnon, thus I would still vouch for the USCG’s OPCs and their 57mm and 25mm cannons just for the purpose of challenging larger ships.
I still believe that the OPCs are too poorly armed as even SPIKE ER, Griffin, Longbow, or any kind of ATGM missile would definitely help and add much needed range and punch against swarm attacks and even drones.
The Khareef class corvette would be a valuable (dreamy) addition, but I would believe that needs to be manned with joint U.S. Navy and USCG crews to man the military battle weapons and sensors. I would not make it a white hull, but a gray hull with the U.S. Coast Guard’s red diagonal stripe across the bow because it’s heavily armed and has AAW and SuW missiles. With an endurance of 21 days, Khareef matches the LCS’s endurance and can ride shotgun to NSC and OPCs, freeing up the valuable Burkes and FFGXs. It’s built by BAE Naval Systems and the USA buys BAE. Khareef would make logical sense as a combined USCG/USN heavy armed escort and multi-role SAR.
The Lurssen OPV-80 has also been recently selected by Australia, and could also be an option. I believe it will be armed with a 57mm Mk3 gun, introducing it into their fleet for the first time. There are also 2 variants of that, the OPV-85 and OPV-90 that increase tonnage to 1900 and 2100 respectively, and include full helicopter hangars.
57mm or 76 mm would fit on any of the ships I have referred to. The Colombian version of the Fassmer OPV-80 has both a 76mm and a 25mm. One of the Thai version of the British River class has anti-ship cruise missiles in addition to a 76mm. We could probably install Naval Strike Missile on just about anything over 1000 ton and a lot of smaller stuff. Keeping the crew small means we have to keep them simple, but there are certainly opportunities for bringing Navy reserves on during mobilization, particularly if weapons or sensors can be containerized.
The key, IMHO, is to keeper Cutter X as simple a ship as possible. If I recall correctly, the idea was to kit out the ship very similarly to the FRC. This would hopefully keep the costs in check but result in a ship which would have much better endurance and seakeeping. The priority being given to endurance and seakeeping.
Once again, a key to keeping Cutter X affordable is to keep it simple. Larger than FRC for sure but small enough that the smaller US yards could participate in the build.
An important consideration may be the rate at which the new ships could be built (due to the pickle we are in with the aged WMECs and budget realities). Here again, smaller and simpler helps.
Cutter X would be smaller and less capable than the NSC and OPCs but more capable than the FRCs.
Is there room for such a ship in the fleet and would something like “Super FRC” be useful?
That is what I was going for. Start with FRC basics, enlarge the hull to allow longer range and greater seakeeping. Take advantage of the larger size to allow aviation facilities, and it turns out we could have a hangar as well as a flight deck on ships as small as 1500 tons full load. Maybe improve communications if it will help the mission, e.g. I would like to add Link 16.
I chose the FASSMER OPV-80 to be representative because it ticks a lot of boxes of things we might want, while retaining relative simplicity and a small crew.
It has a range of 8,000 miles. Company actually says 12,000
30 Day endurance
It can operate and hangar a 10 ton helicopter, so presumably an H-65 and a UAV would fit.
It has three ready boats, more than the OPC.
It has space under the flight deck for containers. Company info says three.
While it has a nominal core crew of 40 or less, it has accommodations for 70.
Apparently there versions with a max speed of 23 knots. Not as much as I would like, but equal to the OPC.
They have been equipped with guns as large a 76mm. I particularly like the way it was done on the last two Chilean OPVs (83 and 84) where the gun is mounted one deck above the foc’sle. That keeps the gun out to the green water most of the time.
Click to access fassmer-80m-offshore-patrol-vessel-technical-data.pdf
Looking at the second benchmark (when we reach 36 new generation large cutters), If we could keep four 270s working through FY2032 and one through FY2033, we might never drop below 40 larger cutters.
Schultz Details Coast Guard Rationale for Offshore Patrol Cutter Re-Compete https://news.usni.org/2019/12/10/schultz-details-coast-guard-rationale-for-offshore-patrol-cutter-re-compete#more-71944
There is a convergence in costs between OPC and NSC. Where do you expect the cost difference between the ships to end up?
I suppose we won’t know for sure until the dust settles with the program. Numbers are being thrown around though for the first four that seem to be approaching NSC territory.
Even adding on an additional $160M per ship the OPC will be cheaper. Concerns are, will there be even more cost overruns and the delay in delivery.
Very interesting analysis… One thing to consider is how to polar security cutter and eventual WPB recap is going to lay into the PC&I budget, which will most assuredly be flat at best. That being said it would seem the first part would be to recognize the year+ delay from Eastern drives the need to add an additional NSC. Then I think it makes sense with the contract relief from Eastern to only commit to a matching 12 OPCs in the new contract structure. At that point the Coast Guard should be able to meet “blue water” and northern latitude commitments, assuming 3 or so medium PSCs. New rescoped OPC program would be long enough, when including heavy PSC program, to gap the NSC and FRC roll down and a new a Fleet Mix Study focused on the OPC and medium PSC analysis of alternatives. Since the original Fleet Mix study the Coast Guard has started the icebreaker program and the security situation has evolved with icebreaking capable patrol vessels from Russia, Canada, and Norway. Additional France (PLG/POM), UK (latest River), Australia (FASSMER OPV-80), and Mexico (SIGMA 10514) have all committed to deploying new patrol capability. It would seem a longer legged FRC for the western Pacific and southern approaches could be more efficiently met with 18+ 270 sized vessels. I’d propose a minimum range of 6000 nm (up to 8500 nm) and speed of 20 knots (up to 24 knots) with capability to support a single small MH-65 sized helicopter (or single MQ-8) and armed with a Mk 110. I would also target a ships compliment of 80 that increases to 100 when deployed with an aviation team.
Chuck, not sure if you have seen this, but this confirms the OPC will have a Mk 38 mod 3 with the coaxial gun. But I also noticed, if I’m understanding this correctly, that the Coast Guard intended to replace the main gun of the 270 WMECs during their modernization with the Mk 110 57mm gun, but has removed that requirement and is now going to install a Mk 38.
Click to access 4206_39.pdf
@Justin1142, Thanks, had not seen this. Actually I am surprised they ever considered adding the 57mm Mk110 to the 270s.
Had expected the move to the 25mm Mk 38 on assumption they would want to simplify and reduce the crew.
Would feel more comfortable about this, if the gun were a bit larger, 30-50mm, but these ships are unlikely to be deployed outside US waters in a contingency, and they are unlikely to be underway, in a combat ready condition, near a US port if there is a terrorist attack.
Overall, this is probably a good decision.
What we really need is an upgrade of all the Mk38s in the Coast Guard to a larger gun.
Meanwhile, we have 14 WMEC210s that have only the old manually controlled Mk38. They could really benefit from the electro-optics and better accuracy of a later version of the Mk38. We could get the guns now, have them serve on 210s for several years, and then transfer to the OPCs as they come on line.