Photo of a model of Halter Marine’s Polar Security Cutter seen at Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space Exhibition have surfaced. Photo credit Chris Cavas.
Naval News reports on Coast Guard remarks about the Polar Security Cutter program at the Surface Navy Association annual symposium.
There is some good news. The Commandant says she is, “100% confident in the design…” The keel has not been laid, but “Welding work is commencing on three build units purchased for the first ship.” (That phraseology does sound a little strange to me.)
She goes on to say,
“I’m focused on fielding the Polar Security Cutters …. [and] getting that first one well into construction, with some predictability around when that ship will come to full operating capacity. We’re working hard with the yard, with the navy, and with the program office to bring some better certainty and clarity around that,” said Adm Fagan.
Which clearly means we do not yet have the predictability, certainty, and clarity the Commandant wants.
Explaining why this is not just an Icebreaker, Rear Admiral Chad Jacoby – USCG Assistant Commandant for Acquisition/Chief Acquisition Officer – told the symposium,
“The distinction there is the Polar Security Cutter is going to do way more than break ice. It will have National Security Cutter-level capabilities, sensors, and equipment on a hull that can go anywhere in the world in any season,” Rear Adm Jacoby continued. “So, we’re not just breaking ice, we’re not just having presence: we’re going to be able to execute almost all USCG missions up in the Arctic, down in the Antarctic, anywhere in the world.”
I look forward to learning what that actually means. It certainly isn’t in terms of installed armament. I don’t see an air-search radar on either the model presented (pictured above) or the illustrations I have seen.
Photo of a model of Halter Marine’s Polar Security Cutter seen at Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space Exhibition have surfaced. Photo credit Chris Cavas.
There do appear to be AN/SLQ-32 antennas on top of the bridge on the model (in gray). Could there also be a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Intelligence Facility) like there is on the National Security Cutter? There are also areas where containerized systems could be installed.
To me the most encouraging thing that has happened with regard to this class is that Bollinger took over the project when they purchased the shipyard that is building them. I wish them every success.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
There is this from an earlier post.
“To meet the modern mission demands, PSC will be equipped with a highly capable Command and Control (C2) suite for full fleet integration. Additionally, PSC will feature the capability for oceanographic operations, a unique capability for the Coast Guard. This capability far exceeds POLAR STAR’s and comes in the form of a robust sonar suite, over 2000 square feet of reconfigurable science space and room for up to nine 20-foot portable scientific vans, an impressive load-out for science focused missions. This capability is critical for the United States to assert and enforce legal authority over the increasingly accessible northern edge of the exclusive economic zone.”
The Congress report has also been updated last week:
It is readily apparent the PSC will be significantly different. So the question arises: Will the USCG be given a larger Role in the Northern seas?
Still needs a better radar (Sea Giraffe/TRS-3D/TRS-4D for example) and armament fit (1-57mm and 2 30mm Mk38 Mod4). I know, I know. I’m dreaming.
…as long as you’re dreaming, also add two 20mm Phalanx CIWS or SEARAM…
Why does the PSC model in the photo have hull number 2038 on it?
Polar Star has a 10 on the hull because it’s WAGB-10.
Healy has a 20 on the hull because it’s WAGB-20.
The first PSC, Polar Sentinel, should have 21 on the hull for WAGB-21.
I hope the 2038 doesn’t indicate the year that they expect the first PSC to be finally be delivered! After all, the Commandant was unable to answer the question from Congress, “Can you at least tell us which decade the first Pola Security Cutter will this be completed?”
Please tell me the 2038 doesn’t mean the expected completion year!
Maybe we are trying to fool the Russians into thinking we have more than 2000 icebreakers.
At this point the PSC is still a paper-ship, e-ship, vapor-ship whatever you want to call a design that doesn’t even have a set of ship prints. Do we know if the hull shape has even had tank testing for open water and ice performance? I’m referring to the CG version of the PSC not the fictional Polarstern that was never built.
I know the Coast Guard did do some tank testing; not sure it is this specific design. There was a lot of consultation with Canadian counterparts.
Part of the problem is that the ship is supposed to operate in the tropics (in transit) and be fit for long open ocean voyages. Those are things icebreakers are not usually good at.
Yes, we have done these things with Wind class, Glacier, and the Polar class, but apparently trying to do better.
Given that they are already producing “prototype modules” that may end up incorporated in the lead ship, I’m fairly sure the Polar Security Cutter design has converged and they are very close to final drawings for the first vessel. The second and third hulls may incorporate some lessons learned from building the lead ship.
VT Halter advertised that the performance of their PSC design had already been proven with model tests by the time they submitted the bid. The video they have uploaded on their YouTube channel shows both ice model tests and open water seakeeping tests. They even emphasize how the design process included “four model test campaigns”.
I’m also fairly sure the final hull form, whatever changes it may incorporate compared to the initial design, has also been similarly evaluated. Physical model testing is not that expensive compared to the risk of failing to meet performance targets.