The Offshore Patrol Cutter intersts me because it falls into a category I rate as "brigs".
I like a lot of what I am reading about it. I also agree with you about speed but would go higher than 25 knots given the speed of many container ships. Such vessels are only likely to get faster over the next 40 years of service these vessels will see.
One question I have is will these vessels be size limited by their basing requirements?
Given that camouflage scheme, then it's an inshore patrol boat for some service in North Africa or the Middle East where the desert meets the sea. Perhaps one of the Gulf states...
The Coast Guard is evaluating the impact of the class on the shore side and will include the cost of the upgrades in the procurement package, but I don't think it is going to be great.
With these larger ships, they don't have to be near any particular area of operation, so there is flexibility in where to put them. Four of our 378s are not being replaced. The ships they are replacing are 210 and 270s so are nearly as large, and the total number of ships is declining.
I think the Fast Response Cutter program may have more impact on the shore side because they are twice as large as the boats they replace. They do have to be local and there are a large number of them--58 planned.
"I was preoccupied today putting up a new post on CGblog. DER, it sort of continues from your last comment there."
At CGBlog Chuck said:
"Making the OPCs as versatile as possible, including planning in wartime potential, costs very little and gives more reason for the ships to be built, as well as increasing the potential for larger scale production in terms of foreign military sales and even possibly US Navy versions."
I had to go back and re-read things to catch the connection to my comment. Like I stated, I just think that large cutters should be readily convertible into wartime frigates.
I'm lot much in favor of loading them down with systems as built, but they should have the potential.
I look at what happened with the 327 foot Secretary class cutter in WWII compared with their Navy half sisters of the Charleston/Erie class.
The cutters were quickly upgraded to perhaps the best American ASW vessels of the war, and later to amphibious force flagships, while the surviving gunboat kept her heavy 6" guns throughout the war and never seemed to do much of anything.
But, Charleston served well in the Aleutians. She was the flagship of US naval forces in Alaskan waters starting in 1940. Then she escorted amphibious forces, bombarded Attu, and shot down at least one attacking Japanese aircraft. Given she had no 5"/38s or Mk 37 directors, then that's doing quite well for such a limited design.
DER, I know Charleston did a lot of survey work in Alaska, preparing airfields, that sort of thing. Same thing the Cutters did in Greenland before the war. She participated in one invasion and got to do some shore bomb.
But her career was relatively uneventful compared to the Cutters. One of the seven 327s was, like Erie, torpedoed and sunk early in the war. The one that spent most of the war in the Pacific also had a relatively uneventful career doing escort duty and later the Med, but even she ended up off Okinawa. But the five in the Atlantic were in the thick of the most savage convoy battles of the war. They were as close as the US got to Walker's Sloops. Out of the total of 36 U-boats sunk by American surface ships, the 327s sank four, in spite of the fact that they were pulled off of ASW duties mid-war and converted to amphibious force flag ships. All of them made at least one invasion, and some several.
They were a blank slate and were readily modified for new missions.
Development of Uzbek river force is supported by the U.S. which financed building of two Ukrainian-made Project 58150 Gurza armored boats for Uzbekistan under Export Control and Related Border Security (EXBS) Program. Project developer is governmental enterprise Nikolayev Research and Design Shipbuilding Center (chief designer is Sergei Krivko). The armored boats were built at Leninskaya Kuznitsa shipyard (Kiev); lead boat Zhaikhun (ship No. 01) was delivered to Termez in November 2005 by heavy cargo aircraft An-124-100 of Antonov Airlines. The second boat – Saikhun (ship No. 02) – was delivered in the same way. Designing and construction of two boats cost American taxpayers $5.6 mln. Remarkable fact is that Russia was nonparticipating party in this process.
Each boat has total displacement of 34 tons and powered by two 1,000-shp US-made diesel engines Caterpillar. Both vessels have water-jet propulsors and quite good speed for river-going ships – up to 55 kph (30 knots). Endurance is one week; each boat is capable to cover about 1,000 km at 20 kph. Main mechanisms are protected by Swedish-made 10-15-mm thick aluminum-steel armor. The crew is only 5 men, although the boat can accommodate landing assault or SR team. Each boat is well-conditioned – microwave oven, reefer and even bath.
Original arms of Gurza-class armored boat consists of:
a) artillery module including 30-mm automatic gun 2A42 and Konkurs antitank missile launcher (used at BMP-2 turret; load is 300 rounds; it is possible to carry additional 300 rounds and 4 missiles);
b) 14.5-mm KPVT machinegun (used at BTR-70 turret; load is 500 rounds);
c) two 7.62-mm PKT machineguns (one is coaxial with 30-mm gun; another – with 14.5-mm machinegun; total load is 4,000 rounds) and 8 smoke grenade launchers.
Radioelectronics comprises navigation radar and optical-electronic night vision equipment.
The U.S. has also declared intentions to deliver 14 small patrol boats to Uzbekistan totaling in $2.9 mln. All this "river power" is primarily meant for countering drug traffic and terrorists escaping from Afghanistan.
two Ukrainian-made Project 58150 Gurza armored boats for Uzbekistan November 2005 by heavy cargo aircraft An-124-100 of Antonov Airlines. The second boat – Saikhun (ship No. 02) – was delivered in the same way. Designing and construction of two boats cost American taxpayers $5.6 mln. Remarkable fact is that Russia was nonparticipating party in this process.
more here:http://rusnavy.com/nowadays/concept/opposite/uzbekiannavy.htm
Making small patrol ships go faster, gets expensive fast. For me the primary determinate for the OPC was the ability to escort amphibs. Certainly wouldn't mnd if they were a bit faster. What I don't understand is why Europe makes major warships--carriers and their AAW escorts--that can't break 30 knots.
38 comments:
Looks like a Scandinavian FAC, but I haven't been able to find a match yet.
Hello Chuck Hill,
it is not a Scandinavian fast attack craft.
GrandLogistics.
Perhaps it is a North African patrol boat. That's a 40 mm gun forward and so it would be a bit under-gunned for a FAC.
Hello,
would another picture help?
GrandLogistics.
Would love a sideview, it did look a bit like a minesweeper.
Was it not a FAC? Not Scandinavian? or neither?
Hello Chuck Hill,
side view coming up.
GrandLogistics.
I was preoccupied today putting up a new post on CGblog. DER, it sort of continues from your last comment there.
http://cgblog.org/2010/11/16/offshore-patrol-cutter-opc-update-nov-2010/
That is certainly distinctive and certainly not a mine sweeper or a FAC.
Not Scandinavian?
Hello Chuck Hill,
the new picture is up.
The Offshore Patrol Cutter intersts me because it falls into a category I rate as "brigs".
I like a lot of what I am reading about it.
I also agree with you about speed but would go higher than 25 knots given the speed of many container ships.
Such vessels are only likely to get faster over the next 40 years of service these vessels will see.
One question I have is will these vessels be size limited by their basing requirements?
GrandLogistics.
Hello Chuck Hill,
no,it is not Scandinavian.
It is not a one off either,there are at least two of these that I know of.
GrandLogistics.
Given that camouflage scheme, then it's an inshore patrol boat for some service in North Africa or the Middle East where the desert meets the sea. Perhaps one of the Gulf states...
The Coast Guard is evaluating the impact of the class on the shore side and will include the cost of the upgrades in the procurement package, but I don't think it is going to be great.
With these larger ships, they don't have to be near any particular area of operation, so there is flexibility in where to put them. Four of our 378s are not being replaced. The ships they are replacing are 210 and 270s so are nearly as large, and the total number of ships is declining.
I think the Fast Response Cutter program may have more impact on the shore side because they are twice as large as the boats they replace. They do have to be local and there are a large number of them--58 planned.
I'm not sure merchant ships will get faster. Right now there is a movement to run them at slower speeds because of the increased cost of fuel.
Nobody is making SL-7s anymore.
Here Chuck said:
"I was preoccupied today putting up a new post on CGblog. DER, it sort of continues from your last comment there."
At CGBlog Chuck said:
"Making the OPCs as versatile as possible, including planning in wartime potential, costs very little and gives more reason for the ships to be built, as well as increasing the potential for larger scale production in terms of foreign military sales and even possibly US Navy versions."
I had to go back and re-read things to catch the connection to my comment. Like I stated, I just think that large cutters should be readily convertible into wartime frigates.
DER,
I'm lot much in favor of loading them down with systems as built, but they should have the potential.
I look at what happened with the 327 foot Secretary class cutter in WWII compared with their Navy half sisters of the Charleston/Erie class.
The cutters were quickly upgraded to perhaps the best American
ASW vessels of the war, and later to amphibious force flagships, while the surviving gunboat kept her heavy 6" guns throughout the war and never seemed to do much of anything.
I think I'm going to have to give up on your vessel ID. Right now, I'm just thrashing about without a clue. Was it built after 2000?
I have Jane's or Combat Fleets of the world for 1982, '86, 90/91, and 2000/2001. I'm hoping to get a 2010.
Hello Chuck Hill,
they were both delivered in late 2004.
Would it help if I told you who paid for them?
GrandLogistics.
Chuck,
Well, Erie was lost to a U-boat torpedo.
But, Charleston served well in the Aleutians. She was the flagship of US naval forces in Alaskan waters starting in 1940. Then she escorted amphibious forces, bombarded Attu, and shot down at least one attacking Japanese aircraft. Given she had no 5"/38s or Mk 37 directors, then that's doing quite well for such a limited design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Charleston_(PG-51)
Hello,
a cryptic clue:
Where the tide went out but never came in.
GrandLogistics.
GL, Certainly might. They looked very stealthy.
DER, I know Charleston did a lot of survey work in Alaska, preparing airfields, that sort of thing. Same thing the Cutters did in Greenland before the war. She participated in one invasion and got to do some shore bomb.
But her career was relatively uneventful compared to the Cutters. One of the seven 327s was, like Erie, torpedoed and sunk early in the war. The one that spent most of the war in the Pacific also had a relatively uneventful career doing escort duty and later the Med, but even she ended up off Okinawa. But the five in the Atlantic were in the thick of the most savage convoy battles of the war. They were as close as the US got to Walker's Sloops. Out of the total of 36 U-boats sunk by American surface ships, the 327s sank four, in spite of the fact that they were pulled off of ASW duties mid-war and converted to amphibious force flag ships. All of them made at least one invasion, and some several.
They were a blank slate and were readily modified for new missions.
http://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/WPG_Photo_Index.asp
Hello Chuck Hill,
the name on the cheque (bill?) said "United States State Department".
GrandLogistics.
Actually that didn't seem to help.
Which continent?
Hello Chuck Hill,
Asia.
GrandLogistics.
I give.
OK,
Choices given the camo scheme might be:
Oman, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, or Bahrain. I suppose Yemen is a possibility. I certainly hope that Pakistan isn't it...
Hello Chuck Hill,
no way.
This is the longest it has taken you to get one and I intend to make the most of it!
Another clue.
The potential patrol area for these boats gets smaller every year.
GrandLogistics.
Well,
That last hint suggests the Aral Sea (soon to be the Arid Sea), with either Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan being the country for which this vessel serves.
Unless, of course you're pointing to Caspian Sea.
Hello D.E.Reddick,
you might just beat Chuck Hill on this one.
GrandLogistics,
Uzbek Navy, although I haven't been able to find out a name yet
Development of Uzbek river force is supported by the U.S. which financed building of two Ukrainian-made Project 58150 Gurza armored boats for Uzbekistan under Export Control and Related Border Security (EXBS) Program. Project developer is governmental enterprise Nikolayev Research and Design Shipbuilding Center (chief designer is Sergei Krivko). The armored boats were built at Leninskaya Kuznitsa shipyard (Kiev); lead boat Zhaikhun (ship No. 01) was delivered to Termez in November 2005 by heavy cargo aircraft An-124-100 of Antonov Airlines. The second boat – Saikhun (ship No. 02) – was delivered in the same way. Designing and construction of two boats cost American taxpayers $5.6 mln. Remarkable fact is that Russia was nonparticipating party in this process.
Each boat has total displacement of 34 tons and powered by two 1,000-shp US-made diesel engines Caterpillar. Both vessels have water-jet propulsors and quite good speed for river-going ships – up to 55 kph (30 knots). Endurance is one week; each boat is capable to cover about 1,000 km at 20 kph. Main mechanisms are protected by Swedish-made 10-15-mm thick aluminum-steel armor. The crew is only 5 men, although the boat can accommodate landing assault or SR team. Each boat is well-conditioned – microwave oven, reefer and even bath.
Original arms of Gurza-class armored boat consists of:
a) artillery module including 30-mm automatic gun 2A42 and Konkurs antitank missile launcher (used at BMP-2 turret; load is 300 rounds; it is possible to carry additional 300 rounds and 4 missiles);
b) 14.5-mm KPVT machinegun (used at BTR-70 turret; load is 500 rounds);
c) two 7.62-mm PKT machineguns (one is coaxial with 30-mm gun; another – with 14.5-mm machinegun; total load is 4,000 rounds) and 8 smoke grenade launchers.
Radioelectronics comprises navigation radar and optical-electronic night vision equipment.
The U.S. has also declared intentions to deliver 14 small patrol boats to Uzbekistan totaling in $2.9 mln. All this "river power" is primarily meant for countering drug traffic and terrorists escaping from Afghanistan.
two Ukrainian-made Project 58150 Gurza armored boats for Uzbekistan November 2005 by heavy cargo aircraft An-124-100 of Antonov Airlines. The second boat – Saikhun (ship No. 02) – was delivered in the same way. Designing and construction of two boats cost American taxpayers $5.6 mln. Remarkable fact is that Russia was nonparticipating party in this process.
more here:http://rusnavy.com/nowadays/concept/opposite/uzbekiannavy.htm
Hello,
Chuck Hill snatches victory from the jaws of defeat.
Gyurza class it is,the manufacturer makes a few interesting vessels:
http://defense-interaction-intelligence-agency.org/NATOAlliesArticle3.html
Now for something completely different.
GrandLogistics.
GL, Thanks I was totally unaware of these vessels.
If the USN Expeditionary Combat Command needs boats, this looks like the perfect prototype--better than anything they've got now for riverine combat.
GL, What was your source for the photos?
Hello Chuck Hill,
they were from the manufacturer's site.
They have some larger vessels which are very interesting.
Ship's boats over over 15 metres offer a lot of military utility if you have ships big enough to carry them.
GrandLogistics.
Hello,
here is a link to the brochure:
http://www.fastcraftnavalsupplies.com/gyurza.html
Getting back to container ships,the economic boom and ever larger ships reducing fuel burn per container made faster ships economically viable.
Now with low demand and high fuel prices we have the trend for going slow.
But the ships will keep getting bigger and more efficient and the economy will recover.
I expect we will then see a generation of container ships a knot or two faster than the current classes.
Which is why I am not comfortable with buying a slow patrol ship which might be in service 50 years from now.
GrandLogistics.
Making small patrol ships go faster, gets expensive fast. For me the primary determinate for the OPC was the ability to escort amphibs. Certainly wouldn't mnd if they were a bit faster. What I don't understand is why Europe makes major warships--carriers and their AAW escorts--that can't break 30 knots.
Gyurza armoured river boat fast attack craft.
Post a Comment