Below is my input to a discussion among my classmates. It is mostly history, but hopefully useful. As I was preparing this, I was struck by the realization that when the Crew Rotation Concept was thrown out, it should have resulted in a complete revision of our program of record.
When the program of record began, it was to replace 12 WHECs, 32 WMECs, and 49 WPBs, a total of 93 vessels with 8 NSCs, 25 OPCs, and 58 FRCs, a total of 91 vessels.
This plan also assumed the NSCs and OPC would use the Crew Rotation Concept that would have theoretically provided about a third more underway days than conventionally crewed cutters.
The Crew Rotation Concept was ultimately discarded, taking with it about 1980 underway ship days or eleven ship years.
This was partially offset by adding NSCs #9 and #10, but we are still getting the equivalent of nine large patrol cutters less than originally planned.
–
Coast Guard missions seem to be expanding. This has been partially addressed by building more FRCs than originally planned. The FRCs have exceeded our expectations and we are planning to have 77 of them, but we are still looking at only 35 large patrol cutters, 10 NSCs and 25 OPCs. I don’t think that is enough.
–
The Coast Guard has been describing the OPCs this way, “The OPC will provide a capability bridge between the national security cutter, which patrols the open ocean in the most demanding maritime environments, and the fast response cutter, which serves closer to shore.”
That is not really true. The OPC and the NSC are virtually the same size. The OPC may be intended to replace the MECs, but in fact it is 1250 tons larger than the Hamilton class WHECs and 2.5 times the size of a WMEC270. The OPC will also have a crew almost the size of that of the NSC. With a range of over 10,000 nautical miles they are high endurance cutters.
In 2012 the OPCs were expected to cost about half of what an NSC cost, now the costs to build and operate are approaching that of an NSC.
–
Since 2012 I have been suggesting that we could meet the need for more large cutters by building a true medium endurance cutter by basically putting the crew and equipment of a FRC in a large hull (at least 80 meters/262 feet) and trading off some OPCs and FRCs for these medium size ships. https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2012/10/12/the-dhs-cutter-study-trade-offs-and-the-case-for-cutter-x/
–
Two years later I did a revised look. https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2014/09/28/cutter-x-revisited/ and along the way, I pointed out several ships that could fill the Cutter X role. Actually they just seem to be the typical Offshore Patrol Vessel.
–
The Japanese are building a class that reflects the Cutter X ideas, a relatively large ship, 312 feet in length, about half the displacement of the OPCs, with a crew of only 30. https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2025/11/14/offshore-patrol-vessels-for-the-japanese-maritime-self-defense-force-launched/
–
Since the geopolitical situation has changed and war with China looks more likely I have begun to think we should start building cutters that are more immediately useful in the event of war.
–
Congress has been telling the Navy they need to look at building Corvettes to bulk up their numbers and the next Navy league magazine is supposed to have a story about the proposal. Assuming these are ASW capable corvettes, this might be a class that could be built as a dual service ship, serving in both the Navy and Coast Guard.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 