Home » Budget Industry » Eastern Shipbuilding Wins Coast Guard Offshore Patrol Cutter Award; Bests BIW, Bollinger


Eastern Shipbuilding Wins Coast Guard Offshore Patrol Cutter Award; Bests BIW, Bollinger

An artist's conception of Eastern Shipbuilding's Offshore Patrol Cutter design.

An artist’s conception of Eastern Shipbuilding’s Offshore Patrol Cutter design.

The Coast Guard has selected Eastern Shipbuilding to build its new Offshore Patrol Cutters and awarded the Florida shipbuilder a $110.3 million contract for the first hull and options for eight more, the service announced late Thursday.

Eastern beat out General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and Bollinger Shipyards for the design and construction of the potential $2.38 billion program in the Coast Guard’s second round competition for what the service calls its, “highest investment priority.”

The first hull is estimated to deliver in 2021.

In 2014 the Coast Guard awarded $64 million in design contracts to Eastern, Bollinger and BIW for the competition to build the replacement for the service’s decades-old medium endurance cutters from a field of eight yards competing for the work.

The service has estimated the ships would cost about $421 million a hull for a total buy of 25 cutters.

The OPC will replace the service’s 210-foot and 270-foot Medium Endurance Cutters. It will feature increased range and endurance, powerful weapons, a larger flight deck, and improved command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) equipment. The OPC will accommodate aircraft and small boat operations in all weather,” read a May Congressional Research Service report on Coast Guard Procurement.

In the statement, Commandant Adm. Paul Zukunft said, “whether combating transnational organized criminal networks off Central America or patrolling in the increasingly accessible Arctic, the Offshore Patrol Cutter will ensure our nation’s maritime security and economic interests are preserved for decades to come.”

The following is the Sept. 15, 2016 announcement from the Coast Guard.

US Coast Guard awards Phase II OPC contract

WASHINGTON — The Coast Guard awarded a contract to Eastern Shipbuilding Group, Inc., of Panama City, Florida, Thursday for the production of the lead Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) and up to eight follow-on cutters.

The total award was valued at $110.29 million. The contract has a potential value of $2.38 billion with options to produce nine cutters.

The OPC acquisition will replace the service’s aging fleet of medium endurance cutters, some that are in excess of 50 years old. Each OPC will feature a flight deck and advanced command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance equipment.

The OPC will provide a capability bridge between the National Security Cutter and the Fast Response Cutter, which operates closer to shore.

“The Offshore Patrol Cutter acquisition is the Coast Guard’s highest investment priority, and we are proud to announce this important milestone,” said Commandant of the Coast Guard Adm. Paul Zukunft. “The Offshore Patrol Cutter will replace our aging medium endurance cutters and provide the majority of offshore presence by the Coast Guard’s cutter fleet. Whether combating transnational organized criminal networks off Central America or patrolling in the increasingly accessible Arctic, the Offshore Patrol Cutter will ensure our Nation’s maritime security and economic interests are preserved for decades to come.”

The first OPC is expected to be delivered in fiscal year 2021; the service plans to build 25 OPCs.

The Coast Guard is currently evaluating home porting options.

  • KillerClownfromOuterspace

    110 million is not the cost of the first hull. I believe it is for the detail design/NRE only.

  • Secundius

    I think the Ulstein Vigor class X-Bow Patrol Cutter would have been a Better Choice. With is “Reinforced” Bow, would have Arctic Patrols easier…

    • KillerClownfromOuterspace

      They were tossed out way before. The Vigor design was not really suited for the USCG mission and ice classing wasn’t really an issue in this competition.

      And I doubt that bow would have worked too well in thick ice. Most heavy ice breakers ride over the top to break ice. The exception being vessels like the mackinaw that ram medium ice.

    • Horn

      I heard that the USCG didn’t like the higher freeboard on the X-bow; thought it was excessive. I also agree with Clown about the bow for arctic patrols, especially with what looks to be an azimuth thruster vulnerable near the front of the ship.

  • RobM1981

    How does it differ from an LCS? There are some obvious differences, such as the cutter not being Low Observable and having the ability to handle more small-craft (RHIB’s and such), but overall – how close are they?

    Was there an opportunity here to build one hull?

    • KillerClownfromOuterspace

      Neither of the LCSs would have met the USCG requirements and they are both much more expensive.

      IMHO, the LCSs should have been replaced by the JHSV.

      • Horn

        The JHSV is a transport, not a warship. It’d be a terrible option for the LCS replacement.

        • KillerClownfromOuterspace

          1/3 the price and lots of space. Add weapons/C4I etc. and it’s the same thing at likely a little over half the price.

          • Horn

            The JHSV, right now, has less half the range of an LCS. Now you want to add all that extra weight to the ship. There goes even more range. It’s stability in rough seas is worse than the LCS. The Spearhead ran into slamming issues during her first ocean transit, at a cost of $500k in damages. The JHSV is not a good option for a warship. It doesn’t even have a permanent hangar. This pains me saying this, but the LCS is a better warship than the JHSV could hypothetically ever become.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            The range nos. are equivalent for the same speed.

            “JHSV is slightly limited in self-deployment range, with test results supporting a 4,000 nautical mile unrefueled transit”

          • Horn

            It’d still be a terrible design for an ocean-going frigate. It can’t handle rough sea states and would require almost a complete redesign of the internal structural layout, not to mention upgrading all it’s systems to milspec. The NSC is far closer to milspec requirements than the JHSV could ever hope to be.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            Except the LCS is not an ocean going frigate. Have you been on an LCS and a JHSV?

          • Secundius

            Considering No “Flo-Flo” Transport Ship was EVER Used to Transport ANY LCS class to the South China Sea. The Part of your Statement, that the LCS’s are NOT “Ocean Going” is Rather a “Moot” Point. NO Ship is Ocean Capable, UNTIL they’ve Actually Done It. PT-Boats of WW2 are a Perfect Example…

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            Ocean going FRIGATE.

            There are pictures of the JHSV in vietnam. And no transport ship was used to get her there.

          • Secundius

            Original JHSV were Built in Australia…

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            Not true. There were some ferries built there but even the hawaiian supper ferries were built in the US.

            You may be thinking westpac express and I believe an INCAT design which were leased.

          • Secundius

            I stand Corrected! US Army bought First Vessel USNS Spearhead in Mobile, Alabama in 2011…

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            MSC operates them. Originally they were going to be army and navy. But civilian crews are more cost effective.

          • Secundius

            They ARE NOW! But At Time of Purchase THEY Weren’t…

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            I beg to differ. First crews were MSC.

          • leesea

            See above

          • leesea

            The USN has taken delivery of ALL JHSVs -period.

          • leesea

            JSHVs are assigned to MSC and operated by CIVMAR crews. The later is a recent decision

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            It was a decision mad during the construction of the first hull I believe.

          • leesea

            Yes the Joint Program Office for JHSV had USA, USMC and USN personnel to present their respective services. Then the US Army Transportation Corps decided to go away from owning ocean transports. SECArmy and SECNAV stuck a deal. More recently MSC has decided to crew all JHSV with CIVMARs.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            I believe there’s never been other than CIVMAR aboard.

          • leesea

            right COMSC was going to split crewing between CIVMAR and CONMAR, but changed his mind. It was too difficult to contract for a crew while the ships’ ops were still be developed and defined

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            And you would have different logistics packages to pay for. It was actually designed that way from the beginning by some smart folks in the MSC office. They just waited for the cards to be played out.

          • leesea

            Wrong the US Army never bought a HSV of any time. The Joint Venture was a lease. the JHSVs are being bought under a contract for joint rqmts. And being assigned to MSC, since the Army decided to get out of the ocean vessel business

          • Secundius

            Are You Sure? Aren’t the Runnymede class LCU Operated by the US Army…

          • leesea

            LCU 2000 are all USAV.

          • Secundius

            LCU-2000 and Runnymede, are BOTH the SAME Vessel class…

          • leesea

            The US Army leased an INCAT built HSV which they named TSV Spearhead. It was USAV vice USNS. The Navy leased an INCAT built HSV-2 Swift which has gone off contract a while back.

          • leesea

            WPE is still under charter to MSC to support the III MEF Marines. Joint Venture was leased by Army TC and long since off-hire. HSV-2 Swift was chartered by MSC to support several USN missions and went off-hire meaning no longer under MSC contract. It was hit by a missile in the Straits of Mandeb (sp?) and reportedly sunk?

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            They aren’t JHSVs though.

          • leesea

            they are generically HSVs a ship type not program as is JHSV. Some prefer AMV Advanced Marine Vessels since not All are fast.

          • leesea

            original rqmt was 23 reduced to 10 and now up to 12 hulls.

          • leesea

            Well not quite. Austal have been building catamaran HSV for decades. The actual forerunner of the JHSV is the 303 meter LOA HSV Westpac Express which I helped charter for the Marines in 2001 and is still in service. JHSV is 313 meter LOA.

          • leesea

            YOu are right no semi-submersible lift has been done of LCS. But I think? that a HSV ferry has been done?

            I believe the term you are looking for is intra-theather as opposed inter-theather which is JHSVs primary goal

          • Secundius

            The EPF (Expeditionary Fast Transport) or HSV Is Not High-Speed Capable in Sea State 5 Passages. Speed is Restricted to ~5kts in Sea State 5 Conditions. At Least 1 EPF is to be Stationed with T-ESB (Expeditionary Sea (Mobile) Base of the Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller class…

          • leesea

            NO ship can steam ahead full in SS5+ and certainly not a HSV. Go look at what the ROC/POE states for the JHSV.
            Stationing is a little too strong. I think the JHSVs will become Fleet assignd assets. AFSB who knows what the Marines will do? Sure are NOT going to be in an ARG?

          • Secundius

            Depend on what EXACTLY Her Role is Going to Be in the “Paired” Billeting. In the “Transport Role” or “Resupply Role”…

          • leesea

            Which ship you referring to? The JHSV is correctedly called a Fast Transport. SHould have been typed as a T-APC but for mabus~
            As of now JSHV have NOT been assigned to the MPF. And there has NOT been a full USMC load out. Marines are holding them out at arms length as Alternate Platforms.

          • Secundius

            At least TWO will be “Yellowed”! One off the Panamian Coast, an the Other Probaby Near the Main Philippine Island of Luzon…

          • leesea

            that is not the JHSV stationing I heard about. Rumor has it one will be stationed here at Mayport

          • Horn

            Personally, no. But an LCS can survive at least Sea State 7, and
            operate aircraft at Sea State 5. The JHSV gets damaged at Sea State 4.
            That’s BAD. The only thing keeping the LCS from being an ocean going
            vessel is the issues with its engines and improper maintenance.

            The estimate I saw for the Patrol Frigate 4921 (NSC) was around $900m. Yes,
            that is expensive, but a solid price for a high end frigate. The NSC
            was built to 90% military standards, better than both the JHSV (civilian
            standards) and the LCS.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            I believe the SS4 damage you are talking about was a design deficiency that was fixed. I do not know what survival sea state is for JHSV but it is certainly SS8-9 as you can not transfers an ocean safely without that capability. Both hulls likely have the same survival req.

          • Horn

            It was reinforced, not fixed. You can’t fix slamming of that magnitude with that kind of hull. That kind of beating reduces the life cycle of your ship and increases maintenance costs. It’s just not a good hull shape for the role you are proposing.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            Every hull has slamming. The general course is to reduce speed and ride it out. Any hull that is driven at speed while slamming will deform.

            The primary issue is aluminum has no fatigue resistance. But, you do know that DDGs are having fatigue issues?

          • Horn

            Of course, because they are overweight. The problem was that the JHSV was slamming below 20knots, in Sea State 4. That’s a bad hull design for rough weather. I don’t understand how you don’t get that.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            In a large enough sea at speed every ship slams. It’s the driver, not the ship.

            How many ships that size go 20 knots at SS4?

          • Horn

            Surprisingly, the LCS can.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            I’d love to see that video. LCS1 looks like a whale at speed as water spouts up her hawse pipe and wets the entire ship.

          • leesea

            Since when are cats “bad”? And BTW Austal has dozens of similar cats in service as opposed to LCS

          • leesea

            don’t think the LCS was a slamming issue so much as twisting??

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            Haven’t read anything bout twisting. Obviously in a beam sea, there will be more motion. But no one likes riding in a beam sea in any craft.

          • leesea

            Hull work to fix design issues is NOT uncommon in shipbuilding. But both LCS variants do have life cycle weight margin issues.
            Ocean escort was NOT a core mission of the original LCS program

          • Secundius

            USS Freedom, Traversed a Category 5 Typhoon on the Saffir-Simpson Scale in 2011 in the Middle of the Pacific Ocean on a Mission Relief to the Philippines with a 6-inch “Tear” in the Hull…

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            I think aviation week had a great article about freedom and I’ve heard other stories since. A huge wake means lots of fuel.

          • Secundius

            But Then Again, So does FOUR Waterjets…

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            Funny cause LCS2 lacks that wake. In fact, her wake is really quite amazing.

          • Secundius

            LCS-1, is a Monoplane Hull, LCS-2, is a Trimaran Hull…

          • leesea

            LCS-2 variant is a slender monohull supported by amas. Not a tri actually

          • leesea

            due to her slender mononull

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            The independence is a much more efficient hull.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            I bet they didn’t drive thru the typhoon as that would get the captain relieved.

          • Secundius

            Admiral William “Bull” Halsey, did the Same in 1945 with Typhoon “Cobra”. Also A Category 5 Typhoon, He Entered with 86 Ships and Came Out with 82. Lost 3 Destroyers with ALL HANDS, Badly Damaged 1 Light Aircraft Carrier (later deemed Unrepairable) , and Severely Damaged 82 Other Ships and Lost a ENTIRE Air Wing. Which required 6-weeks at a Naval Base to be Repaired…

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            I believe there was quite a stink about that.

          • Secundius

            Halsey Retired from the US Navy in 1959. That FLAK he Got was Over Taffy 1, 2 and 3…

          • Horn

            #TheWorldWonders

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            He caught flak for that and was almost removed for a subsequent adventure into a storm. Nimitz had to save him.

            While conducting operations off the Philippines, the Third Fleet remained on station rather than breaking up and running from the storm. This led to a loss of men, ships and aircraft. A Navy court of inquiry was convened on board the USS Cascade at the Naval base at Ulithi. Admiral Nimitz, CINCPAC, was in attendance at the court. Forty-three-year-old Captain Herbert K. Gates was the Judge Advocate for the court.[8] The inquiry found that though Halsey had committed an error of judgment in sailing the Third Fleet into the heart of the typhoon, it stopped short of unambiguously recommending sanction.[9]

            In January 1945, Halsey passed command of the Third Fleet to Admiral Spruance (whereupon its designation changed to “Fifth Fleet”). Halsey resumed command in late-May 1945. In early June 1945 Halsey again sailed the fleet into the path of a typhoon, typhoon Connie, and while ships sustained crippling damage, none were lost on this occasion. However six lives were lost, and 75 planes were destroyed, with 70 more badly damaged. A second Navy court of inquiry was convened. This time the court suggested that Halsey be reassigned, but Admiral Nimitz recommended otherwise due to Halsey’s prior service to the Navy.[9] Halsey remained in command of Third Fleet until the cessation of hostilities.

          • Secundius

            I’m STILL Trying to get a Copy to the Admiral’s Mast of Senator John McCain’s Grandfather Admiral John “Slew” McCain, Sr. in the Battle of the Philippine Sea Campaign…

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            Why? I’m not familiar with it but you are likely an old salt.

          • Secundius

            Spruance gave McCain an Order to do an Aerial Sweep of the Area, at the Same Time of the Taffy 1, 2, and 3 Incident. McCain, Refused to Comply with the ORDER and Ground ALL Planes. Spruance GOT “Heat” After the Battle and a Board of Inquiry was Set Up. Personally, I Suspect that McCain was BITTER because Halsey Gave Overall Command to Ray Spruance and Not Him…

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            Around 08:00 on 24 October, the Center Force was spotted entering the Sibuyan Sea and attacked by VF-20 squadron F6F-5 Hellcat fighters, VB-20 SB2C-3 Helldiver dive bombers, and VT-20 TBM Avenger torpedo bombers from USS Enterprise of Halsey’s 3rd Fleet. Despite its great strength, 3rd Fleet was not well-placed to deal with the threat. On 22 October, Halsey had detached two of his carrier groups to the fleet base at Ulithi to provision and rearm. When Darter’s contact report came in, Halsey recalled Davison’s group, but allowed Vice Admiral John S. McCain, with the strongest of TF 38’s carrier groups, to continue towards Ulithi. Halsey finally recalled McCain on 24 October—but the delay meant the most powerful American carrier group played little part in the coming battle, and the 3rd Fleet was therefore effectively deprived of nearly 40% of its air strength for most of the engagement. On the morning of 24 October, only three groups were available to strike Kurita’s force, and the one best positioned to do so—Gerald F. Bogan’s Task Group 38.2 (TG 38.2)—was by mischance the weakest of the groups, containing only one large carrier—USS Intrepid—and two light carriers (the failure to promptly recall McCain on 23 October had also effectively deprived 3rd Fleet, throughout the battle, of four of its six heavy cruisers).[7]

          • Secundius

            Findings of Admiral’s Mast are SEALED, Upon the Death of Senator John S. McCain, II…

          • Horn

            That’s actually WAY false. All CVLs damaged were repaired. There were survivors from all three destroyers, although not many. Airplane losses amounted to 146 aircraft out of 7 CVAs and 6 CVLs & CVEs.

          • Secundius

            Differences are in 2011, LCS-1 Traversed ALONE through a Category 5 Typhoon. And Halsey with 86 Going IN and LOST 4 Coming OUT…

          • leesea

            The safe operating parameter for JHSV tops at SS8 and very limited speed. They normally don’t go above SS5. The Fast part takes that into account.
            HSV navarchs tell me that multi-hulls have better surviability (in their terms) than do monohulls. There was a cat HSV originally bid in for LCS.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            That’s pretty typical for smaller craft. Most craft are in survival around SS9. It’s pretty hard to roll trimarans and catamarans. The structure has to be well designed to take the loads though.

          • leesea

            yep something known by navarchs for decades. Found out on USNS Hayes in the ’60s

          • Curtis Conway

            Acquisition cost is small change compared to life cycle maintanance costs (training, logistical support, preventative & corrective maintenance). THAT is why the USCG went with the NSC, built at 90% to MILSTD. Arctic capable, all ocean hull. Made for the US Navy and buying them in greater quantity would have brought the cost down to about what is being paid for LCS today. The LCS Program is a classic study in how NOT to do program management and contracts. AND everyone complains about DoD Procurement Reform!?!?!?!? This is stupidity on parade and a blind man can see it . . . IF you are not lined up at the trough, or on the [re-election] take.

          • leesea

            I would have to check your numbers in the specs and in the ROC/POE.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            And the NSC costs how much?

          • Secundius

            As A “National Security Cutter” or As A “Patrol Frigate”…

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            680 as an NSC, likely 800-1000 for a patrol frigate.

          • Secundius

            ~$1.1-Billion in 2014 USD. ~$1.118-Billion in 2016 USD…

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            Be cheaper to modify an OPC.

          • Secundius

            “Bareboat” Cost of OPC is about the Same as an LCS! ~$421-Million USD…

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            Those costs include a lot of NRE. I believe the cost requirement for later hulls is 320m- not counting GFE.

          • leesea

            But OPC is a pretty full up ship, while the seaframes of LCS cost around $460 mil with mission packages extra.

          • Secundius

            That’s what I Meant by “Bareboat”…

          • Horn

            The last NSC hull cost $576m for construction.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            That’s not the nos. I see on the web.

          • Horn

            “The Coast Guard has issued a $499.8 million contract to Huntington
            Ingalls Industries final Legend-class National Security Cutter (NSC),
            HII announced this week.

            The fixed price incentive contract will pay for the construction of the eighth NSC — Midgett (WMSL-757) — at HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding yard in Pascagoula, Miss.

            The construction award follows a July $76.5 million long-lead materials contract to HII for Midgett.”

            USNI won’t let me post the link but I’ll paste the quote from their article from April 2015.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            That doesn’t include a lot of things. LLTM was purchased earlier for example.

          • Horn

            I get that, but given that the average cost per hull was around $680m, that’s a significant reduction in price. Turn that into a large production contract and you can save more money, especially when the yard is already has experience with construction.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            They made 7 of them and that is the current price. HII is always going to skin the customer alive.

          • Horn

            Just do a search, USNI won’t let me post the link. The last ship awarded is the Midgett with a fixed price contract. Ingalls actually has a reputation for REDUCING costs over the lifetime of a project.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            HA!

          • Secundius

            As of 12 August 2016, The CEO of Huntington-Ingalls wants to Outsource Ship Construction with the “PRC”…

          • Horn

            Again, FALSE. Ingalls is expanding their construction facilities. They claim that there are no American companies that can build a DRY DOCK at the size they need. They are looking at China, South Korea, and Japan.

            Seriously, it’s not that hard to fact-check.

          • Secundius

            ALL US Shipbuilders ARE “Incapable” Of Building a Floating Drydock?

          • Horn

            What’s interesting is that Bath Iron Works did the same thing in 2001. Funny how it wasn’t a problem then.

          • Curtis Conway

            Affordably ? . . . yes.

          • leesea

            Chinese do build simple vessels cheaply, and there are several in other US shipyards doing business with USN. But more to the point why not split the contract to US yards that Have the drydock capacity?

          • Horn

            Why not increase building capacity and reap all rewards?

          • leesea

            $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

          • leesea

            IRT Ingalls, I am not talking actual ship lines, I am talking company’s capability to manage multiple ship construction contracts. I mean you can only line up so many hulls, and employ so many workers, until things begin to jam up and details get missed. Witness: all the problems with early LPD-17 most recently

          • leesea

            And anybody wanting a ship out of Ingalls is going to have to get in line behind the LPDs and LXR~

          • leesea

            Latest 2 JHSVs cost $124 mil each

          • Steve

            because they’re beer cans with engines

          • leesea

            Bilge water! have you ever been on a JHSV.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            And none of the ships you are talking about were build to mil spec. It was the NVR that is now extinct.

          • leesea

            this is confusing. The LCS are built to NVR. The JHSV are Not. The JHSV are built to ABS High Speed Naval Craft Code and IMO-HSC. So you are comparing apples and oranges?

          • USNVO

            Sorry, you are completely misreading the JHSV specifications.

            The quoted range is without cargo and the long range tanks full. With payload, its more like 500nm. Once you install everything like hangers, communications (LCS has INMARSAT, UHF, SHF, and EHF SATCOM while JHSV has INMARSAT/BEST), mission module interfaces, storage (LCS has a 21 day endurance), etc. your range would be negligable. Just a note, they do not call this type of ship “Vomit Comets” for no reason.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            With payload at 35 knots. LCS doesn’t have endurance at speed at top speed. I can’t say more but I’m not sure you really know what you are talking about unless the newer ones have been modified.

          • leesea

            The key metric is Payload. I know the JHSV payload is stated at 600 tons. I think the LCS payload is around 300 tons. That leaves a Lot of space and weight for mission packages or as the Currently are lifting Force Adaptive Packages. The JSHV has a secure C3 space whose details have NOT been released and is not generally described.
            The automated control systems on JHSVs have reportedly smoothed out their ride, as opposed to the WPE~

          • leesea

            JHSV has trans-ocean range when not loaded. The design has more than twice the payload of the LCS. So it probably Has life cycle weight margins to spare, wereas neither LCS variant have much to give in weight margins.
            The Spearhead made 43 kts on seatrials! And ALL HSV are more sensitive to sea state than conventional displacement hulls.
            JHSV would need a lot of mods to be any kind of a warship, BUT they could become an Armed Naval Auxiliary.

          • Secundius

            The Argentine Incat “HSC Francisco”, made a World Speed Record in San Francisco Harbor in 18 June 2013. Of just over 58.1-kts…

          • leesea

            It was NOT required to have a hangar since no helos were going to be based on the JHSV

          • leesea

            Well one could “navalize” a JHSV but the Navy isn’t going there. They want a relatively cheap pick up truck to do the lesser missions

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            The point being you could nasalize certain JHSVs for LCS missions and meet the original mission goals of the LCS. Likely could never fit a VLS etc.

          • Steve

            Not true. JHSV isn’t built to “ALL Oceans” specifications and in its current uses it’s sustaining hull damage from wave collisions. Its design isn’t robust enough to add the weight required to make it a warship, because the hull form loses all of its speed advantage when weight is added to it.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            Most ships aren’t armored to any real extent. Everything except guys with rifles in boats is going to go through the protection. Navy ships are designed to be survivable, not munition proof.

            As most warships are not ice classed, that goes for the whole navy.

            The JHSV has 600 tons of stuff that could be added to it. That’s far more than would be required.

          • Secundius

            Armor Protection of US Navy Ships is Either K129 or KM2 Ballistic Kevlar of ~2.5-inches (64mm) Thick…

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            These are things that should not be discussed.

          • Secundius

            Even the Nimitz class Aircraft Carrier, has Kevlar Imbedded in its Hull Design. And Nimitz is a 44-year old Hull Design…

          • leesea

            presumably you are referring to Warships?

          • Secundius

            Yes! The Nimitz class has 64mm of K-129 Ballistic Kevlar Protection in Vital Spaces. The New AP, XP and KM2 are Even Stronger than the K-129…

          • leesea

            Interesting idea to armor a JHSV like they did the LCS. Really affects peformance I suspect?

            Kind of like putting steel plates on a school bus?

          • Secundius

            Kevlar K-29, like that Found on on the Nimitz class Aircraft Carrier. Which is Armored with ~2.5-inches (64mm) Thickness of K-29, is ~14-ounces per Square Yard…

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            It’s published to go 35 knots with 600 tons of cargo and 300 or so personnel. I suspect the armor would be a small piece of the cargo weight. I would bet retrieving the mine hunting system would be way easier as well.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            And I don’t think there’s been a modern vessel below 600ft that has not had structural problems. That goes for NSCs, DDGs, LCSs etc.

          • leesea

            I have seen a Lot of ship specs in my career and never seen one titled: “ALL Oceans”
            If a JSHV has 600 tons of payload, I would say there is Lot of weight which could be naval systems. I believe LCS payload is 300 tons.

          • Steve

            Not true. can’t “navalize” a JHSV. See above

          • leesea

            In My view one can navalize an auxiliary by crewing with naval officers and sailors, adding armament and sensors and then commissioning them as: ANA Armed Naval Auxiliaries.

            Think how many times that was done to merchant ships during WW2?

        • leesea

          Jhsv is a naval auxiliary built to ABS standards and compliant with USCG rules. See above note.

          • Steve

            JHSV is not built to all ocean specs. its having loads of hull damage problems just in a peacetime role – Its FAR from a warship and speed is greatly effected by weight, which is why its payload is too limited to ever become a warship.

          • leesea

            It is an auxiliary not a warship. “ocean specs” are exactly what BS? JHSV has a 600 ton payload about twice what an LCS has.

            Please define what Your warship payload number is?

      • leesea

        NAVSEA has been arguing against the LCS vs. JHSV comparison since program start. They ignore that a catamaran HSV design was offered in for LCS. And they sure don’t want to explain how the LCS costs Three times what a JHSV does

    • Curtis Conway

      The US Coast Guard looked at LCS and rejected it out of hand at first look based on operational and logistical costs. This should tell you something about the Navy model that said the LCS, with this respect, is OK . . . and then built . . . both models. The Navy rejected the NSC partly based upon its speed. The NSC is slower, but the HM&E could be upgraded to meet that need at least to 30+ knots. Space available for growth, and excess displacement capacity far exceeds that of either LCS, so WHO is looking to the future? The US Navy is addicted to their speed boat.

    • leesea

      Both LCS are advance marine vessel hullforms in order to meet the speed and draft rqmts of the USN/ This hullform is Not comparable.

  • Stephen

    Is this what the LCS was supposed to be? At least the USCG seems to have better sense when planning for the future.

  • Corporatski Kittenbot 2.0

    Strap a non-functioning mission module onto this (to serve as ballast or something) and you have yourself an LCS for 1/4 the price.

    • Luke Shaver

      The OPC at one point was supposed to have mission modules.

  • DaSaint

    This was a hard-fought competition. But this was the logical choice, and it was telegraphed if you could read between the lines. I never thought BIW had a chance. Their quality was excellent, but their workforce was expensive and they didn’t really have yard space, considering USN priorities.

    Bollinger knew how to build USCG boats, and has a contract for 58, so their process and relative dependability was highlighted, by their selection as a finalist. But the combination of qualities – affordability, ability to produce complex commercial ships on time and on budget, and no USN or USCG contracts hanging over their head… made this a sensible decision.
    As far as vessel designs go, this was at least as good as the BIW/Navantia design, and similar, but smaller versions are already in use by the New Zealand Navy, as well as the Irish Coast Guard.
    Overall, not a bad design at all, 1-57mm, 2-4 .50 cal, space for a full size H-60 family helo+UAV. Excellent range, good beam and probably seakeeping. Apparently excellent visibility from the bridge (better than the few Bollinger/DAMEN pics I’ve seen). Will be interesting to see top speed. Most likely 24 knots, delivered by the same or similar MTU 16V diesels as the Sentinel class boats.

    • Luke Shaver

      It also has the Mk 38 mod 2, but the USCG is getting mod 3’s so they may put them on the OPC. It also has missile-defense countermeasures and was supposed to be designed for but not with additional armament.

    • leesea

      And of course shipyard capacity was probably evaluated, so going to another second tier yard may have been advisable?

    • Secundius

      Propulsion for the Offshore Patrol Cutter, are Two Man V28/33D STC 20-Cylinder Marine Diesels rated at ~12,204shp each (9,100-kW)…

      • DaSaint

        Quite surprised they chose MAN diesels over MTU which they have much more familiarity with. Don’t know which if any classes of USCG or USN vessels use MANs.

        • Secundius

          It Looks like the USCG uses a “Hodgepodge” of Diesel Engines: Alco, Caterpillar, Detroit Diesels, EMD (Electro Motive Diesels), Fairbanks, MAN, and MTU’s…

  • Luke Shaver

    Last time we heard it will have the Bofors 57mm, a Mk 38 mod 2 or 3, 2 remotely controlled machine guns, 2-4 crew served machine guns, and missile defense countermeasures. Also apparently designed for but not with additional weapons.

    • leesea

      typical to have space and weight reservations for additional (weapons) systems

      • Luke Shaver

        Yep.

    • Ed L

      Well at least someone is building a reliable (bit on the small size). corvette size vessel It’s appears that it’s going to be a very flexible a cutter

      • Secundius

        Just EXACTLY How Reliable IS IT? Considering NOT One Has Been Built Yet!

      • Luke Shaver

        I hope it will be a flexible cutter, hopefully not filled with problems.

  • Ed L

    Going off the OPC for right now. So they built 18 (Sentinel-class cutter, previously known as the Fast Response Cutter, is part of the United States Coast Guard’s Deepwater program.). Is the total 26 to be built or 57 cutters They are a little smaller than the navy’s cyclone patrol craft. But they could fit the bill to replace the cyclone class ships

  • John B. Morgen

    Is there any options to enhance this cutter (sloop), if war were to breakout? How quickly can this class be navalized after the president ordered the Navy to induct the Coast Guard into naval service?

    • Luke Shaver

      According to the Concept of Operations it’s designed for but not with the additional weapons/equipment and systems to operate in a higher threat environment.

      • John B. Morgen

        If that was the case, then this Coast Guard cutter would [not] do so well going up against a Chinese PLAN destroyer DDG. What CoO thinks is strictly wishful thinking because the cutter is going to need weapons upgrades in order survive a naval conflict with the PLAN.

        • Luke Shaver

          I don’t think they are planning for a Coast Guard cutter to be going directly against Chinese Navy destroyers. Cutters during wartime would most likely protect the U.S. mainland, assist the Navy during certain operations, possibly man Navy ships, and escort convoys. I don’t know what they have planned on the new cutters, but the post FRAM Hamilton class cutters were designed to hold anti-ship missiles behind the 76mm gun, and could have torpedoes added. Apparently the 210’s were designed to be up-armed if needed to preform ASW during war time.
          Also apparently the NSC was designed to have a VLS behind the 57mm when the company looked at other variants of the NSC and apparently that capability is still there.

          • John B. Morgen

            I agreed with your statement about this cutter being use for ASW duties; instead of surface actions. This cutter (sloop) is little improvement over old Hamilton class cutters. However, the CG should design their cutters (sloops) with more armaments than what is being built for CG.

          • Luke Shaver

            I agree, well I don’t believe they need a lot of armament during peace time, but they need to design them with a good plan of up arming them fast if needed.

          • John B. Morgen

            I agree…..

          • FWGuy

            This new cutter is not being built to replace the Hamilton Class Cutters. That ship is being replaced by the National Security Cutter and it will be capable of operating with the US Navy in case of a war. As this article states this new cutter is replace the medium size (210s & 270s) cutters but will be much more sea-worthy with its increased size (360 ft).