US Capital West Side, by Martin Falbisoner

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has again updated their “Report to Congress on Coast Guard Cutter Procurement”. (This link will always take you to the most recent edition of the report.) My last post on this evolving document was in reference to the March 25, 2024 update. The report includes a nice one page summary if you are new to our current shipbuilding activities but the news is on pages 27 and 28, the last two pages of the report excluding the Appendixes, which I have reproduced below,

The Administration asked for two FRCs and the House Appropriations Committee has recommended four. This, in addition to the 67 currently funded, would bring the total number of FRC funded to 71 which is the requirement in the current program of record, 58 for domestic use, one lost to a fire in dry dock, six for PATFORSWA, and six for the Indo-Pacific.

It’s not clear to me if the six for the Indo-Pacific is just the six currently planned for Guam or does this refer to six in addition to the three originally planned for Guam that replaced two WPB110s? It has appeared the Coast Guard might also base FRCs in American Samoa. Looking at the numbers that appears to be the case.

It also appears another WMEC 270 that has gone through Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) will be headed for the Pacific.

FY2025 DHS Appropriations Act (H.R. 8752)

House

The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 118-553 of June 14, 2024 on H.R. 8752, recommended the funding levels shown in the HAC column of Table 1. H.Rept. 118-553 states.

Fast Response Cutter (FRC).—The recommendation provides $335,000,000 to purchase four additional FRCs, economic price adjustments related to the rise in material and labor costs, and post-delivery missionization costs.

Offshore Patrol Cutter.—The recommendation provides the requested $530,000,000 to continue the program of record for these critical assets. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to continue to provide additional program and schedule details, as described in the explanatory statement accompanying Public Law 117–103, as part of the required quarterly major acquisition briefings. (Pages 53-54)

H.Rept. 118-553 also states

Engagement in the Indo-Pacific.—The Committee supports the Coast Guard’s efforts to help develop the maritime capabilities of partners and allies in Southeast Asia. To better assess these efforts, the Committee directs the Coast Guard to provide a briefing within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act on its work in the Indo-Pacific, including current efforts, opportunities for expansion, and options for improving coordination with and leveraging capabilities with the DOD, especially U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM)….

Oceania Operations.—The Committee recognizes the importance of the Coast Guard in maintaining the U.S.’s posture in the Indo-Pacific. The Committee supports the Coast Guard’s efforts to expand its presence in the Indo-Pacific, especially through the ship rider program, and encourages the Coast Guard to continue its coordination with USINDOPACOM and partner and allied nations. To better evaluate these efforts, the Committee directs the Coast Guard to report to the Committee not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act assessing the Coast Guard’s capabilities and operations in the Indo-Pacific. This report should include a list of current assets in the region, any assets and capabilities needed to address unfulfilled requirements, any areas where logistical support is needed, and any changes that must be taken to effectively implement the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy. To support the Coast Guard’s Indo-Pacific operations, the recommendation provides $3,000,000 for increased presence of regional Coast Guard Maritime Advisors, Liaison Officers, Attaches, and other foreign engagement positions throughout the Indo-Pacific, and $1,200,000 for Indo-Pacific workforce support including for housing, medical, and childcare access for Coast Guard personnel.

270′ WMEC Service Life Extension Program.—The Committee supports the Coast Guard’s efforts to counter aggression by the PRC in the Indo-Pacific. The recommendation includes $60,000,000 for a service life extension program for one Medium Endurance Cutter, enabling the Coast Guard to deploy an additional support cutter to the Indo-Pacific. The Coast Guard plays a vital role in the Indo-Pacific, but the vast distances in the region and limited resources hamper the Coast Guard’s ability to expand its presence. This Indo-Pacific support cutter will help the Coast Guard increase its activities and better support the U.S. mission in the Indo-Pacific. (Pages 50, 51, and 53)

Future USCGC Argus at launch Eastern Shipyard

No News from Eastern: 

I was hoping for some news about Eastern’s progress on the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) program, but I could not find any. Eastern has contracts to build four ships,

• Argus (915) and Chase (916) to go to San Pedro, CA
• Ingham (917) and Rush (918) to go to Kodiak, AK

Reported milestones for the four ships are as follows:

• Argus:     Steel cut Jan. 7, 2019; Keel laid April 28, 2020; launched Oct. 27, 2023
• Chase:    Steel cut April 27, 2020; Keel laid May 27, 2021
• Ingham:  Steel cut Sep. 27, 2021; Keel laid July 15, 2022
• Rush:     Steel cut Oct. 18, 2022

Nothing since October 2023, not even a report of keel laying for Rush, which should have happened in 2023. Was Rush’s keel laid? Are sea trials being conducted on Argus? WTFO!

The Planned Timeline:

The Congressional Research Service report, “Coast Guard Cutter Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress” noted.

“The posting for the RFP for the Stage 2 industry studies (October 11, 2019–Chuck) included an attached notional timeline for building the 25 OPCs. Under the timeline, OPCs 1 through 7 (i.e., OPCs 1-4, to be built by ESG, plus OPCs 5-7, which are the first three OPCs to be built by the winner of the Stage 2 competition) are to be built at a rate of one per year, with OPC-1 completing construction in FY2022 and OPC-7 completing construction in FY2028. The remaining 18 OPCs (i.e., OPCs 8 through 25) are to be built at a rate of two per year, with OPC-8 completing construction in FY2029 and OPC-25 completing construction in FY2038.

Using these dates—which are generally 10 months to about two years later than they would have been under the Coast Guard’s previous (i.e., pre-October 11, 2019) timeline for the OPC.

The Current Optimistic Timeline: 

We are in the middle of FY2025 and still waiting for OPC#1, so we are at least an additional three years late on delivery of USCGC Argus and we are almost certainly an additional two years late getting the first ship from Austal (though I am hoping for a pleasant surprise).

Eastern was expected to deliver one ship every year. I would have expected construction to speed up with experience, but the intervals between steel successive steel cuttings and between successive keel layings never got down to 12 months. But let us presume that Argus OPC #1 will be delivered in 2025 and Eastern will deliver #2- 4 at 12 month intervals.

Austal started cutting steel for OPC #5, Pickering (WMSM-919), on August 29, 2024. I assume they will deliver four years after starting steel cutting and annually thereafter with two per year delivered after #7. It should look like this.

• 2025 #1
• 2026 #2
• 2027 #3
• 2028 #4 & #5
• 2029 #6
• 2030 #7
• 2031 #8 & #9
• 2032 #10 & #11 These will replace the last of WMEC210s
• 2033 #12 & #13. These will begin replacement of Alex Healy and the 13 WMEC270s
• 2034 #14 & #15 These are the last that will be built under existing contracts
• 2035 #16 & #17
• 2036 #18 & #19
• 2037 #20 & #21 These will begin replacement of the six SLEP WMEC270s
• 2038 #22 & #23
• 2039 #24 & #25 These will replace the last of the WMEC 270s

This does assume a smooth continuation of the program, delivering two ships a year without interruption even after exercising all options and completion of existing contracts.

All the WMEC210s will not be replaced until 2032. At that point even the youngest of the 210s would be 63 years old. It is by no means certain any will last that long, but Reliance is already 61 years old.

All WMECs would be replaced by the end of 2039 by which time the youngest WMEC270 will be 48 years old.

Will the program continue uninterrupted after the completion of the currently optioned 15 OPCs? This would be easy only if Austal wins the contract for a Phase 3. Is that a forgone conclusion?

If some other company wins the Phase 3 contract, will they also initially deliver the first three ships at the rate of one ship per year as was done with the first two contracts?

Alternatives: 

It can take up to ten years from the beginning of planning to delivery of the first ship. In reality it has taken considerably longer for the first OPC to get this far and we still no finished product. Even if all options are exercised, the last currently contracted OPC will be funded in FY2030 or 2031.

Do we still want to be building a design in 2030 that is 15 years old? Does the Coast Guard now own the design that could be handed over to another contractor to build the last ten ships or would a third yard have to provide a third detailed design, creating a “C” class of OPC?

Now is the appropriate time to consider alternatives.

Assuming we want to continue with the same design, Phase Three might be started with the idea of awarding a contract in FY2027 and delivering one additional OPC each year 2032, 2033, and 2034 by either Austal or a competing shipyard, with the winner producing two per year thereafter, until all 25 are completed. It would allow completion of all 25 a year and a half earlier.

If we want to look at an alternative that could replace the last ten currently planned OPCs and start delivering ships by 2035, we should issue an RFP in 2026.

There are two directions this new design could go.

• A cheaper design that can be made in larger numbers.  A primary goal would be a smaller crew as a way to reduce operating costs.  It might be smaller and cheaper (we already have contracted for more than enough ships to do Alaska patrols), but should be able to support alternative mission modules and unmanned systems.
• Ships that can be more readily upgraded for a wartime role. We might accelerate the design process by looking at the European Patrol Corvette, Australia’s Tier 2 combatant under the AUKUS umbrella, or if the country needs an ice capable combatant look at Finland’s Pohjanmaa-class corvette.