Canadian Coast Guard vessel CCGS Garbarus Bay | Photo credit: Mel & Jer Creative
Recent reports of the delivery of CCGS Garbarus Bay prompted me to look again at the Canadian Coast Guard Bay class motor lifeboats. They are considerably larger than the USCG 47 foot MLBs. I was also reminded; we have not heard anything recently about replacements for the now retired 52 foot MLBs. The 87 foot WPBs are also nearing the end of their useful life. A large, reasonably fast MLB like the bay class could replace the 52 foot MLBs and some of the WPBs. (In other places we may need a different kind of WPB replacement.) With their smaller crew, be less expensive to operate than the WPBs. These could be the true “Fast Response Cutters” capable of responding in extreme weather when a Response boat medium or even an 87 footer could not. Might even call them Response Boat, Large.
The Canadians are procuring 20 of these large MLBs. The vessel’s particulars are as follows:
- Displacement: 62.5 tons (47 foot MLBs are 18 tons; 87 footers are 91 tons)
- Length overall: 19.0 meters (62′)
- Length DWL: 17.5 meters (57.4′)
- Beam: 6.3 meters (21′)
- Depth at midship: 2.58 meters
- Hull draft, nominal: 1.67 meters (5.5′)
- Power: 2,400 kW (about 3,200 HP, more than the 2,950 HP of the 87 foot WPBs and more than three times the power of the 47 footers)
- Speed: 23.5 kts
According to Wikipedia,
They are capable of operating in 12-metre (39 ft) waves, and in wind conditions at 12 on the Beaufort scale. The vessels’ hulls will be aluminum, not FRC (fibre reinforced composite), as with the original Severn design.
Canadian Coast Guard vessel CCGS Chedabucto Bay | Photo credit: Chantier Naval Forillon
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
These are a variation of the RNLI lifeboat. They would be a good choice if we can past the NIH (Not invented here).
You do realize that the 87ft WPB, the 110ft WPB, the Fast Response Cutter, the future Offshore Patrol Cutter and the future Polar Security Cutter are ALL foreign designed vessel, right?
So Not Invented Here!
I am, of course the icebreaker was based on a design for a ship that wasn’t built.
The design was derived from the technical data from the “parent design” RNLI Severn (the finest design of its size in the world), but with significant modifications for the Canadian application.
Built of aluminum rather than advanced composite because there is a more robust aluminum shipbuilding industry in Canada than composite.
Canadian-specified machinery and electronics suite.
Increased length by 1.7m (about 6 feet).
And our fine-looking red & white livery.
Chuck, does it have the accommodations to conduct the 87ft’s mission?
gCaptain posted an image way back when that doesn’t appear to show any crew space to support multi-day deployments. t.ly/szW8g
My other concern would be can the accompanying RHIB be deployed in a timely manner. And would it support VBSS actions.
I would not expect the large MLB to deploy an RHIB, they should be able to come along side, much as pilot boats do.
The Bay Class does not have any overnight accommodations … though the internal compartments are far more spacious than most self-righting SAR Lifeboats.
It carries a small RHIB, launched and recovered by the knuckle crane.
BTW its maximum speed is 25 knots not 23.5. During sea trials we actually achieved 26 knots with 14 persons aboard … most of whom were crowded in the for’d survivor space to achieve optimum trim (beyond the scope of the transom-mounted interceptors).
Am I seeing the starboard bow right that it appears to have a bow thruster? I think these would be great for SAR response & MLB replacement. Not so sure about the 87 replacement though. Endurance, crew size and crew accommodations would be my main concerns. I will also add that I prefer the painted hull and superstructure. I fully understand why we no longer paint the 47 and as a former SA/SN/BM, I sure wouldn’t miss all of the work but the red & white color scheme here sure looks sharp.
Yes, the Bay Class has a bow thruster.
Some of our most experienced Commanding Officers were quite insulted by the notion that anyone would feel they might “need” a bow thruster.
I had to explain that it wasn’t there for them, but rather for the next generation of shiphandlers who might not be as capable as these grizzled veterans.
In fact it’s a large heavy vessel, and the bow thruster makes quite a difference in tight spaces.
Once at the throttles, all the oldtimers were quite pleased to try out that new tool.
What we see now is that 87 footers are being replaced by response boat mediums (RB-Ms) and FRCs. Even if we built large MLBs FRCs would still have to do some of the missions WPBs do now, but they could do much more than the RB-Ms and maybe some missions RB-Ms and WPBs can’t do.
I’m wondering what has changed in the mission set with the 87′ WPB vice the 82′ WPB? Do the 87s being retired without replacement not perform multi-day patrols or go far offshore? I know 82s were tasked with LE and fisheries patrols that RBMs couldn’t do. I realize that we don’t tow as many broken down fishing boats from 100 miles offshore as in the past but is there no mission for 87s? It just seems like the number of FRCs in service will not be able to fill the missions. Unless this is a ploy to build more FRCs? Retire the 87s and then tell Congress that we need more FRCs to perform the missions. It kind of looks like the platform size creep that has happened several times in the CG history. Every new boat needs to be larger than the last to perform the same mission. 95s replaced by 110s replaced by 154s. 75s by 125s. 82s by 87s. 270s by 300+ foot OPC. 327 by 378 and then 418 foot NSC.
@Dale Sale, at the same time we have FRCs doing WMEC type missions. We have RB-Ms doing short durations missions WPBs would have done in the past while FRCs do some of their longer duration missions. We have far fewer large ships than we used to. In 2000 we had 44 patrol cutters over 1000 tons, now we have only 36, down 18%. The number of ocean going and coastal buoy tenders is also down. In 1990 we had 28 WLBs and 12 WLMs (40 total), now we have 16 WLBs and 14 WLMs (30 total, down 25%). The mix has changed. I think we still need WPBs, perhaps not as many, but with additional capabilities to do missions we really can’t do now. https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2019/04/01/the-87-foot-wpb-replacement-response-boat-large-interceptor/
The specs say this MLB can go 100 nm offshore but they really don’t specify a range. The 47 has a 200nm range. Also missing is the towing capacity.
The 52 had good range plus racks and a small eating area for crew. I couldn’t find any info on the facilities on board this new boat.
The way they are basing the FRC in groups leaves large areas that if you need help from a boat the response time could be long, especially on the west coast. It seems the USCG is getting further away from the SAR mission.
Of course, the most important equipment for a long SAR case is a reliable head! 😉😂
On the 44’s we had a bucket and a rope. That was essential for the long tuna calls.
These would make decent replacements for the 52’ MLBs, and I can’t help but think steel would be better for the hull, or at least the keel and frames. Just thinking rocky bottoms and self-righting. In fact, the CG might find a good use for them in District 17, if they buy more like a dozen, instead of just a couple to replace the 52s. (Part of the reason the 52s lasted so long was because they were steel, IIRC.)
While they do have better endurance and size than a RB-M doing WPB missions, I agree with the consensus above, that these are not a WPB. I’d like to see a modern version of the 95’er as a replacement for the 87 WPB. The Cape Class were some mighty fine boats.
It’s an interesting question as to whether or not the Bay Class would be a suitable replacement for the 52ft MLB, and I know that the USCG was reaching out to enquire about the Bay Class.
Bear in mind that the Bay Class is neither a “surf boat” like the 47MLB nor is it a long-range patrol vessel like the 87ft WPB.
It is self-righting of course, but I don’t know that I’d recommend too many barrel rolls just for fun.
For the CCG application, the self-righting capability is more about sufficient initial stability to PREVENT full rollovers, and about the protection from downflooding in all conditions, as it is the ability to survive a potential full rollover and return to base.
The primary focus of this larger vessel class was to replace our previous 16m Arun class SAR Lifeboats with a vessel capable of responding to the fishing banks (which are about 100 n/mi off shore), and the ability to tow the new larger classes of fishing vessel.
As far as steel construction … that would be a much heavier vessel (and this one’s already no lightweight!) that would inevitably sacrifice some speed and performance.
You’d have to do your own math on the viability of that.