Wanted to share the US Naval Institute video above. Clearly, they were impressed.
We have certainly talked about these ships before, beginning in 2014: here and here with numerous comments on these posts, particularly the first. I thought it might make a good Cutter X, a cutter sized between the OPC and the FRCs.
Reviewing information on this class, most surprising was the small crew size–23–fewer than the Coast Guard is using to man the Fast Response Cutters, but this may not include the boarding party or helicopter deck crew. In some services, these are only added when required rather than being part of the crew. There are additional accommodations for 30 additional personnel, but even the max crew, 53, is significantly fewer than the normal crew of a WMEC210 (75) and about half the crew of a WMEC270 (100). The crews of the OPCs will be even larger.
Two 11 meter RIBs can be launched from ramps in the stern very much like those seen on the similar sized L’Adroit (now Agentine Navy ARA Bouchard (P-51) class, which also manages to include a helicopter hangar).
Also unusual for OPVs are the four container size mission module positions and the twelve cell VL MICA-M vertical launch anti-air system. (VL MICA-M is currently also used by the navies of Egypt, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. It has also been selected for the navies of Bulgaria, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Ukraine.)
Ship Specifications
Length 80 meters
Beam 12 meters
Draught 3 meters
Displacement 1,250 tons
Speed in excess of 27 knots
Endurance 3,500 nautical miles (up to 14 days)
These ships appear to have essentially the same engines as the Webber Class Fast Response Cutters, but they have four of them.
These are what I would consider the minimum size for a true Offshore Patrol Vessel.
I suspect the quoted displacement, 1,250 tons, may be a light displacement. Asian nations seem to prefer to prefer this measure. Certainly, it is considerably larger than a 210 (1,050 to 1127 tons) and only bit smaller than a 270 (1800 tons). For some missions, its small size and light draft might be advantages.
Navy Recognition (now Army Recognition, Navy News) had a very good virtual tour of one of the class. The accompanying text was very informative.
Interestingly, when Singapore decided to buy offshore patrol vessels, they went with a different design. I suspect because this Fassmer design is less complex while retaining a lot of flexibility and may be more seaworthy and have greater endurance.
If the Coast Guard (or Navy) were interested in a similar design, what would we want to keep and what would we want to change?
Crew size: We would want to keep the automation that allowed a smaller crew.
Boats: The boat handling facilities appear adequate and could also be used for launching and recovering unmanned systems.
Aviation Facilities: The lack of a hangar may be a problem, but if unmanned air systems (UAS) are considered adequate, they can be supported.
Range/Endurance: The Coast Guard would probably want a cruising range of more than the 3500 nautical miles reported for these ships, even though this is 1000 nautical miles more than reported for the FRCs, but this figure is reportedly for a speed of 18 knots. At 14 knots the range should be over 5000 nautical miles. If a greater range was needed, a cutter might get by with two similar or slightly more powerful engines and still make 24 knots. Electric motors attached to the shafts and powered by ship’s service generators might provide improved range at modest speeds as well as provide redundant get home power. This would also avoid the necessity of running diesels at slower than designed operating speeds to gain greater range.
Mission Modules: The provision for container sized mission modules seems good idea. It might be desirable that at least some mission modules have clear air space above them, but modules below the flight deck can still be used for increased endurance, holding cells, additional berthing, medical facilities, disaster relief, support of unmanned systems, mine countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare, and other purposes we may not have anticipated.
Armaments: With an increasingly hostile world, how might they be armed, either as built or in terms of future possibilities. Inevitably the Coast Guard will use weapon systems and sensors in the US Navy inventory. There are direct replacements in the US Navy inventory for the gun systems, the 57mm Mk110, the new 30mm Mk38 Mod4, and .50 caliber remote weapon stations. The US Navy currently has nothing the size and capability of the VL MICA-M. The Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) is smaller. It would not be a bad choice, but because it is not a vertical launcher and superstructure blocks its sensor, it will always have a blind sector. Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) is much heavier than MICA (620 lb (280 kg) vs 112 kg) but it is not a lot bulkier. ESSM could be fitted using the Mk56 VLS, but Mk 41 VLS would provide more flexibility. Looks like the 76mm and 12 VL-MICA could be traded for eight Mk41 VLS and a second Mk38 Mod4, if it were necessary to give up the medium caliber gun to make room for the missiles. ESSM’s anti-surface capability alone would more than make up for the loss of the 76 or 57mm gun. Two 30mm Mk38 Mod4 would provide good protection against kamikaze UAS. The load out might be up to 32 quad-packed ESSMs or a mix of ESSM, vertical launch ASROC and surface to surface missiles.
Peacetime Missions: These would be adequate to handle Atlantic Area Coast Guard Missions currently handled by medium endurance cutters. In the Pacific they would be a major improvement over FRCs for countering IUU in the Western Pacific and could be effective in the Eastern Pacific drug transit zones.
Wartime: Thinking about possible wartime roles, with modifications and augmentation, Coast Guard patrol cutters might be able to provide ASW escort across the wide expanses of the Pacific where submarines are likely to be the only threat. For that mission, a hangar for an H-60 sized helicopter and greater range would be desirable. A few ESSMs would probably be adequate because over most of the Pacific, the air threat would be limited to relatively small numbers of submarine launched anti-ship missiles.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
That is the kind of Ship the USCG so desperately needs in the pacific
It’s a minor difference but the USNI video says these ships have the OTO Melara 76mm “Super Rapid,” but clearly the gun in the video is the earlier 76mm Compact. It is possible the gun may have been up graded to some extent.
What would it take to make this a decent escort in the Red Sea? It seems pretty close if we could address Ballistic Missile threat and a hanger for a drone.
The new tech SPY-6 and SPY-7 can do a lot with much smaller radars than the current SPY-1 but Ballistic Defense is still a big ask.
On the other hand, while DDGs are numerous enough to cover large areas protecting against ballistic missiles at long range, I suspect they have a problem protected all that shipping against UAS that keep a low profile. There may be a need for close escort capable of taking out suicide drones.
On the other hand, that threat might be better handled by aircraft.
If you are looking for to upgrade USCG cutters, you should be looking for using American made weapons from other services.
Instead of MICA, what about the RAM missiles. Both the CRAM missile launcher and CWIS use muck of the same equipment.
I keep wondering why they are not combined. Use a CWIS’s search radar and modify the program to include launching a RAM missile to get a hit at longer range. That is what the stand-alone C-RAM system does.
It would be a U.S. based solution, so much more acceptable to congress.
Also, the U.S. Army is looking at using an 18 round box launcher for the AIM-9X missile. Could a below the deck launcher be made to work? It could also be mounted on the deck for possible vertical launch.
While anti-ship missiles might not be politically acceptable weapon, what about the Army Hellfire missile? The Navy has already tested it for the LCS.
All these weapons are already in production, with the Sidewinder 9X from a ground launch, still being tested, but earlier versions were used for the Chapparal missile launchers.
My suggestion are to keep costs low and use in service weapons to speed up acquisition and cut development costs and above all, getting weapons that work from day one.
Consider a National Security Cutter with an 18 round box behind the forward gun holding Sidewinder AIM-9X, but fitted below deck, possibly covered to avoid attention and farther back a box launcher for the Hellfire missiles and then the CWIS.
Jim CARROLL
I wonder what it would take if the USN/USCG got their heads together and make a Viable patrol ship like this. This would be great for the low end missions such as presence, show the flag and even Escort missions.
I am probably wrong, but I really think the US needs something like this basically as an escort for our shipping. A modern DE, not a frigate but more a corvette. Speed and range to keep up with oiler and merchantmen, not nuclear carriers.
Limited manning especially during peacetime or maybe owned and operated as Navy Reserve vessels. I have the view that sailors are the real limiting resource going forward
That’s what I am thinking as well. A Corvette with a level of a frigate Something around the Ada-class corvette, Avante 2200 design from Navantia or the Gowind class Corvettes.
These corvettes would be great for the Navy/USCG reserve to use during peacetime and for Escort missions, Show the flag Missions, escort missions, ASUW/ASW missions Anti terrorism/Piracy missions and including ISR missions. The corvettes be used exclusively by the USCG/USN reserve
Those Corvettes would have enough room to have a Marine Platoon or USCG LEDET.