The Italian Coast Guard launches the first of two new ships. Relatively large at 310 feet long and 3,600 tons full load, but not nearly as capable as the projected Offshore Patrol Cutter, to me this looks like an adaptation of an oil industry Offshore Support Vessel. Most interesting feature is electric propulsion. Raytheon’s integrated bridge system might also be interesting, but there are no details in the story. Reasonable question is, can they can function effectively with a crew of only 38 or do they need additional augmentation for each mission. Apparently they can routinely berth up to 60 in addition to the crew, and up to 600 additional in case of an emergency. This last is a reflection of Italy’s Alien Migrant Interdiction problem.
Thinkdefense recently reported on the test of a new application of the proven Brimstone missile. (They also have some additional video, and excellent commentary.) Three missiles were launched almost simultaneously against five boats (four stopped and one underway at about 20 knots) simulating a swarm attack. The three missiles each hit a separate target.
Targeting:
The thing that makes this missile so interesting is the range of options it provides the user to ensure that the right target is hit and there is little or no chance of collateral damage. It is equipped with an all weather millimetric radar that will show the shape of the target, and in the latest version semi-laser homing. It can be “fire and forget,” but it can also allow a “man-in-the-loop.” It can be given a laser designation and then continue to independently track the target. It has a terrain avoidance feature allowing it to hit targets on the far side of islands. A kill box can be designated so that it will ignore targets outside the box and self-destruct if it passes through the box without finding a target. Multiple rounds can be fired in a salvo, against one or more targets.
Will the US consider it?:
Clearly this weapon is being marketed to the US, including apparently for use on the Littoral Combat Ship as a competitor to an enhanced Griffin. US Special Forces have already shown an interest in the missile.
“BRIMSTONE is also being proposed as a surface-to-surface missile for deployment within the SEA SPEAR self-defence system against FIACs (fast inshore attack craft–Chuck) and other small surface threats. With a range of deck-mounted launcher options, from single to six-pack configurations, the system’s very small footprint gives it a high level of deck positioning flexibility making it suitable for small vessels such as FACs as well as much larger vessels such as auxiliary ships.”
Footprint:
It is relatively small, about 107 pounds, less than six feet long, and approximately seven inches in diameter. They claim it is suitable for vessels as small as 15 meters (50 feet).
Alternatives
The nearest similar missile in US service right now is the Hellfire. Brimstone developed out of a program to improve Hellfire, so not surprisingly, Hellfire is very similar in size but has a shorter range. Hellfire has been used on the Combat Boat 90 (a 52 foot boat). It does not have the sophisticated dual mode guidance and collateral damage avoidance features of the Brimstone. Several types have been built. Most are semi-active laser homing, but there is a millimetric radar homing version also, but it does not include the man-in-the-loop feature of the Brimstone. The model that appears most useful in a naval environment is the “N” model. The Thermobaric warhead does sound interesting.
AGM-114N Hellfire II
Target: Enclosures, ships, urban targets, air defense units
New weapons like this are beginning to give even very small craft the punch that once came only with something like a 5″ gun, but perhaps more importantly it allows a very precise application of force. That should be very important to the Coast Guard in that their units are most likely to operating in and around the US including densely populated areas.
This may not be a ship killing, or even ship stopping weapon (although it might help), but it might be useful against a different type of difficult target. We might someday need to stop a terrorist or an enemy in wartime employing a fast highly maneuverable craft operating inshore or among a number other vessels where gunfire is likely to cause civilian casualties. This system would be much safer, and more likely to succeed, than using guns, in that circumstance.
Too good to be true?
With the possibility of being surrounded, pushing one button, and wiping out all your enemies, I was reminded of this sequence from the movie “The Last Starfighter.”
MarineLog is reporting tests of a 99 meter catamaran ferry, built by Australian shipbuilder Incat Tasmania, that reportedly made 58.1 knots while fueled with Liquefied Natural Gas. It is claimed to be “…the world’s first dual fuel high speed ferry to operate on LNG as its primary fuel, and the fastest, environmentally cleanest, most efficient, high speed ferry in the world.”
“The vessel’s high speed can be attributed to the combination of Incat wave piercing catamaran design, the use of lightweight, strong marine grade aluminum, and the power produced by the two 22MW GE LM2500 gas turbines driving Wartsila LJX 1720 SR waterjets.”
“Incat has built 25 High Speed Craft over 5,000 gross tonnes with a top speed in excess of 45 knots.”
Incidentally, in spite of the advanced hull form, this still takes a lot of power, two 22MW GE LM2500 turbines equates to over 59,000 shaft horsepower, so its going to use a lot of fuel.
DefenseMediaNetwork has taken the occasion of the transfer of the former USCGC Jarvis (WHEC-725) to review the progress of the Bangladesh navy (BN). In addition to Jarvis the USCG is expected to transfer another 378 and
“…the USCG has been steadily delivering significant quantities of small craft – primarily 16 Safeboat Defenders and 20 Metal Shark Defiants, with more than 30 such craft delivered to date. Deliveries of Defiants are ongoing under the USCG Security Assistance Program. Most of these craft are used by the naval Special Warfare and Diving and Salvage (SWADS) although a few have gone to the Bangladesh Coast Guard.”
Given what Bangladesh has done with their former British Castle Class OPVs (discussed at the end of the article), we may expect that the former cutters will soon be equipped with Chinese made sensors and weapons including anti-ship cruise missiles.
Don’t know where this came from, or when it happened, but it looks like someone’s coast guard is going to have to spend more than they expected to get that cutter.
NavyRecognition is reporting Russia’s Coast Guard will deploy four new ships (apparently icebreakers) to exercise sovereignty in Arctic waters.
Additionally,
“Eleven border protection facilities are to be built in the Arctic, while automated surveillance systems are to be deployed in the area as part of the Russian Federation State Border Protection program for 2012-2020, an FSB representative said.“
gCaptain and MarineLog are reporting a very odd icebreaker concept developed by Finland’s Aker Arctic. I think it may be worth reading both, since their emphasis is a bit different.
You look at it and the ship is very much asymmetrical. Unlike other icebreakers, which break a channel little larger than the beam of the ship, this design is intended to break a wider channel by orienting the ship obliquely relative to the direction of movement. The gCaptain article illustrates this best. They also plan to use this oblique orientation to sweep up pollutants.
The Aker Arctic concept is intended for breaking first year ice rather than multi-year Arctic ice. It is a medium size ship, 98m long, 3200tons, much closer to the Mackinaw than the projected polar icebreaker. This concept is probably not applicable to the new polar icebreaker, but it might be useful for a USCGC Katmai Bay (WTGB-101) Class replacement, since it would allow a single relatively small ship to clear a channel for much larger ships.
India recently commissioned INS Saryu, the first of a new class of Offshore Patrol Vessels (five photos), that are in many respects similar to the planned Offshore Patrol Cutters. I don’t think anyone is considering these as contenders for the OPC contract, but with similar mission profiles, they do show what the OPC might look like. From the Wikipedia Description:
Displacement:
2300tons
Length:
105 metres (344 ft)
Beam:
12.9 metres (42 ft)
Draught:
3.6 metres (12 ft)
Propulsion:
2 x 7790 kW engines
Speed:
25 knots (46 km/h)
Range:
6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km) at 16 knots (30 km/h)
The 2,300 ton displacement is probably the light displacement. Full load is probably more. The beam is essentially the same as the 378s, so the helicopter facilities look reasonable, although I hate to see them all the way aft, where they are most effected my pitching.
I’m hoping for a more sophisticated hybrid or integrated diesel electric powerplant on the OPC, but the two diesels on Saryu providing almost 21,000 SHP are certainly adequate, meeting the OPC’s objective speed of 25 knots.
Crew size is very similar, with a total of 110 compared with the OPCs’ projected Manpower Estimate of 104 total (15 officers, 9 E-7 and above, and 80 E-6 and below) plus up to 12 attached personnel. (Another source indicates Saryu will have a crew of 16 officers and 102 enlisted.)
Range is a little less at 6,000 nmi compared with 7,500 minimum for the OPC, but it is measured at a higher speed–16 vice 14 for the OPC. It is likely the Saryu would also have a longer range at lower speeds.
The armament is also similar, only a bit heavy on the Indian vessel compared to the 57mm Mk 110, single 25mm Mk38mod2 and two remotely controlled .50 cal projected for the OPC.
A little surprising, that these ships are being built for the Indian Navy, instead of the Coast Guard, which in India is part of the Navy, but there is also, reportedly, an outstanding contract for six similar ships for the Indian Coast Guard.
Frequent contributor Bill Wells has some thoughts on the recent exchange between U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller and Carnival Cruise Lines, in which the senator suggested that Carnival should pay the cost of assistance provided by the Navy and Coast Guard to Carnival’s “Triumph” and “Splendor” cruise ships. Bill looks back on the history of asking for renumeration, and suggest there is precedence for this. “Adapted to Their Condition and Necessities,” Paying for Rescues
gCaptain is reporting that Carnival Corp. is bowing to pressure from U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, said it will reimburse the U.S. for costs related to the breakdowns at sea of its Triumph and Splendor cruise ships. There is some additional background here.
Thoughts?
Thoughts of my own:
Somewhere in between charging nothing and charging the fully prorated lifecycle cost of the asset there is also the possibility of asking for reimbursement of the marginal cost attributed solely to the rescue.
Did Carnival ask for our help or did we volunteer it?
Obviously the Navy did not figure costs the same way the CG did, otherwise the hourly cost of an aircraft carrier would have dwarfed the hourly cost of a 378.
Some of us remember when the Coast Guard was your friendly free towing service for boats that frequently ran out of gas. That doesn’t happen as much anymore.
Maybe we just need to collect more in the way of fees from the foreign flag ships that make up the cruise industry.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 