The crews of the Coast Guard Cutters Midgett (WMSL 757) and Kimball (WMSL 756) transit past Koko Head on Oahu, Hawaii, Aug. 16, 2019. The Kimball and Midgett are both homeported in Honolulu and two of the newest Coast Guard cutters to join the fleet. (U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Matthew West/Released)
Sorry, this is late. I got bogged down in details. So, this is a streamlined commentary, but I hope still relevant.
The December 2023 issue of US Naval Institute Proceedings has an article by Lieutenant Brian Adornato, U.S. Navy Reserve, suggesting it is time to consider designing a replacement for the Bertholf class National Security Cutters.
He points out that, based on the history of the Offshore Patrol Cutter and the Polar Security Cutter, it now typically takes 14 years from project initiation to commissioning.
“The Coast Guard began discussions with industry regarding the medium-endurance cutter replacement, the offshore patrol cutter (OPC), in 2010. The first OPC is scheduled to commission in 2024.2 The initial integrated product team for the next heavy ice breaker, the polar security cutter (PSC), was assembled in 2013, and the first ship is scheduled for delivery in 2028.3 The first NSC was commissioned in 2008 with a service life of 30 years, so the Coast Guard must start the process now to field the NSC(X) in 2038.
The Coast Guard is going to have to change its behavior if we are going to start replacing National Security Cutters (NSC) when they are “only” 30 years old. But even if we don’t, that doesn’t mean we should not be considering new cutter designs.
The first NSC was commissioned more than 15 years ago so its concept and requirements really originated more than 20 years ago and there is still one more ship that has not been delivered yet.
The OPCs’ concept was firmed up more than 10 years ago and the last is not expected to be delivered until 2038. That would be more than 25 years from concept to deployment of the last ship. I don’t think it will happen. I don’t think it should happen. It would be putting our collective brains on cruise control.
Instead, we should periodically reevaluate. One design may not be the most economical way to meet all our needs where weather, endurance, speed, and facilities vary from location to location. Trying to meet the most demanding requirements of every possible environment may preclude building enough ships to do all the missions well.
We know the Coast Guard has completed a new Fleet Mix Study. It has not been made public, but you can bet it suggests we need more large patrol ships. The original 2009 Fleet Mix Study indicated we would need 66 large cutters (NSCs and OPCs) to meet all our statutory mission requirements, and if anything, our commitments seem to have increased.
In 2000, when the program of record was being formulated, the Coast Guard had 44 patrol ships of six classes, each over 1000 tons full load. (12 x 378s, 13 x 270, 16 x 210, Alex Haley, Acushnet, and Storis).
Ships were distributed in recognition of their relative strengths and weaknesses. Stout, very sea worth, but relatively slow ships, Alex Haley, Acushnet, and Storis were based in Alaska to do fisheries patrol. 10 of 12 WHEC378s were assigned to the Pacific to take advantage of their long legs and seakeeping to conduct Alaska Patrol and deal with the great distances in the Pacific. 210s were generally assigned to where the weather was more benign, so that their small size was not a significant disadvantage. 270s, more seaworthy than the 210s, but not really suitable for Alaska Patrol, were generally assigned to more Northerly East Coast homeport from which they did fisheries and drug enforcement.
The original Program of record would have provided only two classes totaling 33 large patrol ships (8 NSCs and 25 OPCs). Congress has added three NSCs so it looks like we are working toward 36 (11 NSCs and 25 OPCs)
Once the announced decommissionings are completed, looks like we will have 33 (10 NSCs, 13 x 270s, Alex Haley, and 9 x 210s). I don’t expect any numerical increase as the last NSC and OPCs are completed and WMECs are decommissioned. Certainly, if we proceed as planned, we can’t expect to have even 36 until the completion of the OPC program in 2038.
The last Fleet Mix Study did not attempt to identify minimum requirements for different mission sets, rather it considered using only the NSC, OPC, and FRC as possible alternatives. This meant that the cutters might be “over qualified,” for specific missions and locations, because alternatives with different sets of characteristics were not considered. Being overbuilt may not sound like a bad thing, but if it means you can’t build as many ships as you need, it is.
The out years on the contracts we have are options. If the Coast Guard determines that it would be better served by contracting for a different design in the out years, the Coast Guard is free to do so, and, at this time, there are not even options for the last ten OPCs.
We know change is the only constant. Demands on the Coast Guard change. What the Coast Guard does changes. Technology options change. Threats change. I would argue the Defense Readiness mission has taken on increased urgency.
We need to reevaluate periodically. We really should have at least two broad classes of patrol cutters, the larger more capable ship that can operate in the most demanding environments and a second more numerous type to operate in the more typical circumstance. You can’t really say that is the case if we only have NSCs and OPCs, their size and capabilities are too similar. I am not a particular fan of the HEC/MEC designations, but it is a familiar construct that conveys the idea (why not WPL and WPM, Coast Guard Patrol Large and Patrol Medium).
Designs need to be reevaluated at least every ten years, we might decide to continue to build what we are building, but that should be a conscious decision, not just sleepwalking.
We could do it as rotating five year programs. I would suggest we need a true medium cutter than can be built in larger numbers than the OPC first and then look at designs for a new large cutter. That would still give us time to go through all the steps that seem to be necessary to design and contract for a ship.
The designs of the NSC and OPC were about ten years apart and it has now been more than ten years since the design of the OPC. We should not let our design and contracting skills atrophy. It is time to at least start the process to see if we cannot come up with a better design to address our changing requirements.
We should never stop building patrol cutters. I suspect we need more than 60. We really should be producing two per year, either one large patrol cutter and one medium patrol cutter or two medium patrol cutters every year.