Fast Response Cutter Alternative? FRC-A?

Posted on by
52

The following are excepts from a news release found here: http://www.msstampabay.com/

14 January 2011:

“The Department of the Navy announced Friday the award of a $29 million shipbuilding and support contract to Maritime Security Strategies, LLC, (MSS) of Tampa, Florida. The contract, under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, was awarded for a 43-meter Coastal Security Craft (CSC) for the Lebanese Navy. MSS will work with its primary design agent and shipbuilding partner, RiverHawk Fast Sea Frames, LLC, also of Tampa, to design, produce and outfit the ship.

“The MSS/RiverHawk … currently has two 60-meter Offshore Supply/Command Vessels under construction for the Iraqi Navy….MSS/RiverHawk use epoxy resin (instead of carbon fiber) for the AMP hulls because of its virtual indestructibility and the fact that it is so easy and inexpensive to repair and maintain. The deck and superstructure are aluminum, which allows topside arrangements to be reconfigured in a modular fashion as mission requirements dictate over the life of the ship.”

—————————-

There are several things I find interesting here.

  • Why didn’t they choose either the 87 ft WPB or the Webber (Hero) class WPC, which are relatively well know quantities? Is the Navy attempting to open up additional sources of combatant craft? Is it just the fact that three of the four principals in the company are retired Navy admirals? Interestingly all three have backgrounds in minesweepers.
  • This is a fixed price contract ($29M) for a first of class, with no learning curve. The the price is already significantly less than that for the Webber Class ($88M for the first and $41.5M each for the most recent buy) for a vessel with very similar capabilities. In fact it appears this vessel is closer to the original specifications for the Fast Response Cutter–composite construction and 30 knots–than the Webber class. Is it really that cheap to build?
  • If I interpret their web site correctly, the vessel was apparently already under construction before the contract was finalized. Is this a lost leader, sold for less than the true cost, to prove their capability in hopes of attracting additional orders?
  • Jargon used to describe the vessel sounds a lot like that used for the LCS. They call it a “sea frame” and talk about its adaptability, including the ability to take aboard two 40 foot containers (or presumably four 20 foot container?). Will the use of LCS containers make these vessels useful as anti-submarine and mine countermeasures vessels? The company appears to be positioning itself, if not to replace the LCS, to at least supplement it and exploit its supporting technology.
  • This web site description shows variations on the basic design that seem optimized for supporting special operations (two 12 meter fast interceptor boats, or a helo deck for not just any small helo, but specifically the “little bird,” a reference to the MH-6/AH-6 special operations helicopter). Is this the replacement for the Cyclone class PCs that were always considered a bit too large for the Special Operations role? The fiberglass construction should also tend to make the vessels more stealthy.

—————————-

The original Concept for the Fast Response Cutter, FRC-A, included a composite hull. These comments are from the Acquisition Directorate web site:
“12. I’ve heard talk of the FRC-A, and Sentinel Class patrol boat, what’s the difference?
“The FRC-A designation referred to the first revision of the original FRC design specifications which called for, most notably, a composite-hulled ship. After careful research and evaluation, the Coast Guard concluded that not only was the technology not yet mature enough to produce the conceived design, but that it would not possibly be available soon enough to meet the critical mission requirements and capability needs of the service, both now and in the foreseeable future. As such, the Coast Guard proposed a revised design specification, identified as the Sentinel Class patrol boat, through a “parent craft” acquisition strategy. Parent craft describes the use of an existing ship design that has successfully performed equivalent missions.
“13. Is a composite technology out of the picture now?
“Following the award of the Sentinel Class patrol boat contract, and to ensure that mission needs are met as quickly and cost-effectively as possible, the Coast Guard will examine and develop options to procure the remaining Fast Response Cutters based on the overall performance of the Sentinel and the ability of the Sentinel Class to meet original FRC A-Class requirements.  No decision with regard to composites has been made.”
There is a lot more information on their web site, but to briefly compare the two classes.
  • The “AMP 145” is 145 ft. long, the FRC is 154.
  • AMP, 28 ft beam, FRC 25.4 ft
  • AMP displaces 230 tons, FRC 353 tons, I am sure the builders of the AMP would credit at least some of the lighter weight to the construction techniques and suggest that this will result in fuel savings.
  • AMP 30+ knots, FRC 28+

The AMP 145 is propelled by two diesel engines using water jets. (There is a three engine option for 40+ knots.) They claim a maneuvering speed of 1-3 knots. One of the things that has always bothered me about the Webber class was the decision to delete the controllable pitch props, which were included on the parent craft, in favor of cheaper fixed pitch propellers. Potentially this may mean that the vessels may have low speed maneuverability problems. The conning officer will have a choice between engaging the engines which will accelerate the vessel to a minimum speed, dictated by the idle speed of the engines and the pitch of the prop, or disengaging the engines entirely.  His choice of speeds is not infinitely variable between zero and maximum, as is the case with controllable pitch props. In most cases, of course, this can be dealt with, but there are situations, including towing or when the berthing space is tight, where it can be problematic.

The adaptability of the design is also interesting. In addition to the containerized options, the ability to carry two boats or to provide a flight deck for the Fire Scout UAV are both interesting.

As always, the devil is in the details, but it appears that the cutter we wanted earlier may now be available. At any rate, competition is a good thing. It appears the Coast Guard may have another option available, possibly at considerable savings. Will the Coast Guard, as stated above, revisit their choice?

(Thanks to Lee Wahler for bringing this to my attention.)

Long Lead Items for NSC #5, WMSL 754 James, Contracted

Posted on by
10

Northrop Grumman tells us that they have received an $89M contract for long lead items for the fifth National Security Cutter (NSC), WMSL 754 James. They also say work should start on #4, Hamilton, the middle of this year.

Let’s see. #3, Stratton, delivers this year. It will probably be three years until Hamilton delivers, 2014. Four more NSCs to build. One a year, last one won’t come on line until 2018, probably not fully operational before 2019. By then the newest 378 will be 47 years old, and the oldest 210, still to be replaced, will be 55 years old–this is so wrong.

UAVs–Other services have them, When will the Coast Guard?

Posted on by
39

A couple of recent posts reminded me clearly that UAVs are a mature technology. An Army UAV program, the MQ-5B, which entered service in 1996, has reached the 100,000 hour milestone, with more than 72,000 of that being in combat.

https://i0.wp.com/media.globenewswire.com/cache/189/hires/9401.jpg

(Northrop Grumman Corp. photo)

Even the Indian Navy is using them for ocean surveillance.

This raised the question, “Where are ours?”

I know the Coast Guard does have a program to use UAV. If the program description is up to date, the Coast Guard hasn’t done any testing since 2008. I don’t think that is the case. Still you have to wonder what is happening, and why we aren’t using this technology at least in the form of land based UAVs to watch the passes in the Caribbean.

I know there are issues with using unmanned aircraft in airspace where they mix with civil and general aviation, particularly at altitudes where private aircraft may be operating without flight plans, out of contact with air controllers. As a private pilot I’ve seen the Notice to Airman posted regularly. I don’t want to see us have a mid-air either. FAA still has issues to work out for flying them over the US.

Still couldn’t we be using Scan Eagle in the Caribbean and off Colombia? Let’s try a detachment on a 210 instead of embarking a helo, to explore the possibility of possible employment from the Webber Class Fast Response Cutters.  (More on Scan Eagle here and here.)

Unmanned Air Systems may be problematic, but why don’t we have a program for Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USV). Pairing a USV with a ship can effectively almost double the ship’s search width. Creating a new generation of boats that can be controlled either by an embarked boat crew or remotely, feeding back radar and electro-optic information can make them extensions of the ships sensors for long hours or even days, in situations that would be abusive or dangerous to an embarked crew. The solutions are already out there.

Another Deadly fisheries Dispute–India v. Sri Lanka

Posted on by
2

We have a report of another fatal encounter between fishermen and fisheries enforcement personnel. In this case, it is Indian Fishermen and the Sri Lankan Navy, with shots fired at three fishermen and one killed. There are calls for the Indian government to protect the fishermen from the Sri Lankan Navy. The initial reaction from Sri Lanka is that its Navy was not in the area, is under strict instruction not to use deadly force, and they will investigate. At least this time, it is not a question of who has jurisdiction over the waters.

Thanks to http://combatfleetoftheworld.blogspot.com/ for the heads up.

Arctic Patrol Cutter?

Posted on by
10

While looking into Fincantieri’s US operation regarding the OPC, I ran across reference to an Ice Capable ship being built for the National Science Foundation. The ship is the Sikuliaq, pronounced [see-KOO-lee-auk]. It “will be a 260-foot oceanographic research ship capable of bringing scientists to the ice-choked waters of Alaska and the polar regions. When complete, the vessel will be one of the most advanced university research vessels in the world and will be able to break ice up to 2.5 feet thick. Currently under construction at Marinette Marine Corporation, a shipyard in Marinette, Wisconsin, the Sikuliaq will be ready for unrestricted science operations in 2014 and will be home ported in Alaska, at UAF’s Seward Marine Center in Seward.” More info here.

It’s only a light icebreaker and it isn’t very fast, but with a flight deck and a little more power, mightn’t this be the basis for an affordable patrol ship that can give us a seasonal presence in the Arctic? The price is reportedly $200M (revised from original post).

Length, Overall LOA 260 feet
Length, Design Waterline LWL 237 feet 0 inches
Beam, Max across reamer Bmax 52 feet
Beam, Max across hull amidship Bmidship 48 feet
Depth, Keel to Main Deck D 28 feet
Draft, Design Waterline TDWL 18 feet 9 inches
Freeboard, Design Waterline FDWL 8 feet 9 inches
Displacement at Design Waterline 3,665 long tons
Propulsion Power P 5,750 BHP

Performance

Endurance 45 days
Endurance, Hotel Only 60 days
Speed, Calm Open Water Vcalm 14.2 knots
Speed, 4 M Sea (13.1 ft) Vss 5 12.3 knots
Level Ice at 2 knots Ice thickness 3 feet

Capacities and Working Areas

Science Berths 26
Crew Berths 20
Science deadweight 100 long tons
Science/Storage Vans, 8 feet x 20 feet 2 – 4 vans
Science storage 8,000 cubic feet
Consumables:
Diesel Fuel, at 95% 170,000 gallons
Fresh Water, at 100% 13,150 gallons
Water making capacity 6,000 gallons/day
Provisions 60 days
Holding capacity 24 hours
Science Labs 2250 square feet
Deck Working Area 4360 square feet

New Small Missile System for the LCS–Coast Guard Applications?

Posted on by
5

It’s not official yet, but it looks like the Navy has found a missile system for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The Navy had been planning to use a system that was being developed by the Army called Netfires, also referred to as the NLOS-LS (non-line-of-sight, launch system), but the project proved overly ambitious and expensive, and worst of all inaccurate.

The newly selected missile is the Raytheon Griffin. It is small and light, with a warhead intended to limit collateral damage, only 43″ long, weighing 33 pounds, with a 13 pound warhead. In its current form it has a relatively short surface to surface range of 5,500 meters, but there is talk of extended range version. It uses GPS for attacks against fixed targets and semi-active laser guidance against moving targets. In addition to finding a home on the LCS, it looks like all four DOD services will use it, on a wide variety of platforms, and it will be produced in very large numbers, driving the price down. The picture below shows four mounted on a HumVee. The missile is already being used by special forces units including some of their supporting C-130s. Its being used on UAVs where its light weight means that three Griffins can replace each Hellfire. Among others it is expected to be used on the Navy’s shipboard RQ-8 Fire Scout which the Coast Guard is also considering using.

Here is a pdf with more information: http://www.ausa.org/publicatio..

Navy Close to Choosing Griffin Missile for LCS

I know a lot of people will roll their eyes when I talk about giving the Coast Guard access to missiles, but think about it. This weapon can give a patrol boat stopping power that only our largest cutters have now. Perhaps more importantly, when we use force, we want it to be precise, to destroy only what we intend. The 76 mm and 57 mm guns we have on our ships now are potentially much more destructive. Even when we fire a 25 mm, .50 cal, 7.62, or an M-16, it can land thousands of yards behind the target, in places we never intended, including among innocent civilians. When you absolutely, positively, have to stop someone, this may be a better choice.

Italian OPC Design

Posted on by
7

Defense news is reporting the launch of the second of four ships being built for the Turkish Coast Guard at a total cost of $480M (same as the cost of one NSC). These ships are similar to the projected Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) and are based on a design by Fincantieri also built for the Italian Navy (four ships) and the Italian Ministry of Transport (two ships).

Fincantieri is Italy’s leading shipbuilder, building a range of ships from aircraft carriers and frigates to offshore patrol vessels. Its Manitowoc Marine Group through its Marinette Marine shipyard, is one of nine shipbuilders that have expressed an interest in building the OPCs. They have also, in partnership with Lockheed Martin, recently been contracted for options to build ten additional Freedom (LCS-1) class ships for the Navy. Marinette Marine has also been building Coast Guard Response Boat, Mediums. Before being acquired by Fincantieri Marinette Marine also built 225 ft buoy tenders and the icebreaker Mackinaw (WLBB-30).

I haven’t been able to find out how the Turkish units are equipped. There seem to be very significant differences between the Italian Navy units and those built for the Ministry of Transport. The specs for the Italian Navy version are as follows:

  • Crew: 80 total including 8 officers
  • Overall Length: 88.4m (292 ft)
  • Length at Waterline: 80.3m (265 ft)
  • Beam: 12.2m (40.26 ft)
  • Draught: 4.6m (15.2 ft)
  • Full Load Displacement: 1,520 tons
  • Armament: 1×76 mm, 2x25mm
  • Speed: 25 knots
  • Range: 3,500 nmi
  • Helo deck and hanger for NH90 (essentially the same size as an MH-60)

Slightly smaller, with less endurance and probably not quite up to the level of seakeeping the Coast Guard has been looking for, but still interesting ships, and if they do make an offer on the OPC, their proposal is likely to be based on this design.

Marinette is also building a 260 foot ice capable vessel for the National Science Foundation. I’ll post about it soon.

Another Fisheries Dispute, This Time–Japan v. South Korea

Posted on by
5

There is another fisheries dispute based on contested sovereignty. This time it is between South Korea and Japan. The dispute is over the Liancourt Rocks, called Dokdo by the Koreans and Takeshima by the Japanese. Sounds like the Japanese may be pushing there claims on the waters sounding these rocks which the South Koreans have been administering since 1954.

To give you an idea how seriously the the South Koreans take this dispute, the largest warship in the South Korean Navy, an 18,000 ton big deck amphib, is named Dokdo.

This and other disputes, are why it is so difficult for these two countries, which would appear to be natural allies, find it so hard to work together.

Jamaica/Honduras Fishing Dispute Turns Deadly

Posted on by
6

Jamaican Coast Guard reportedly fired into a Honduran fishing vessel with the intention  of disabling it, killing the captain. Needless to say the Hondurans are upset. A report by ABCNews is here. What I found strange in the report was that the Honduran fishing vessel reportedly had 100 people on board, quite a few for a fishing vessel.