Home / Admin and Updates / Think Defence is Changing

The Vigor Offshore Patrol Craft

Read about this  on G Captain this morning

Will Ulstein’s X-Bow Be Incorporated into the Next Generation of US Coast Guard Cutters?

Vigor Industrial, and of course Ulstein certainly hope so.  They’ve been working together for the past two years to come up with a new Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) design that would replace the aging Reliance and Famous- class of medium endurance US Coast Guard cutters.  Those ships have seen active service in since the 1960s and 1980′s respectively.

We have looked at the Ulstein X Bow a few times in the past and I am actually in the middle of re writing the SIMSS series of posts with new and updated information.

Click here to read more at the Vigor web site and here for the brochure.

 

8003937595 1c4af5d0c1 The Vigor Offshore Patrol Craft

Vigor Offshore Patrol Craft, click to enlarge

8003938536 a225a7cf07 The Vigor Offshore Patrol Craft

Vigor Offshore Patrol Craft, click to enlarge

Seems to me it has obvious synergies with the MHPC programme

About Think Defence

Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!

Related Posts

64 thoughts on “The Vigor Offshore Patrol Craft”

  1. Swimming Trunks

    From gcaptain link –

    ” Vigor has configured the Ulstein X-Bow® for maximum mission effectiveness with the following features:
    A large, stable flight deckA large hangar that comfortably accommodates an H-65 with the blades extended and a future UAV
    An innovative boat hangar for protected maintenance – day or night, fair or foul weather
    A flexible boat handling system to accommodate a variety of boats, including the MK IV Over-the-Horizon Cutter Boat and unmanned surface and subsurface vessels
    A powerful and efficient propulsion system
    Quiet and comfortable living spaces

    The Vigor OPC is not only affordable to produce, but it also reduces operational costs throughout the life of the vessel.
    7-16% better fuel efficiency than a conventional ship, depending on speed and sea state
    A flexible and fuel-efficient propulsion system
    Spacious machinery compartments
    Reduced operational manning and maintenance requirements”

    Your SIMMS concept looking more achievable by the day TD.

  2. The Other Chris

    @TD

    Re: MHPC

    Took the acronyms out of my mouth.

    What’s the feasibility of the UK engaging in a joint acquisition with the USCG, or even just tagging an order on?

    It even has a gun on the front.

    EDIT: Could Vigor support UK orders on top of the USCG? Could UK shipyards manufacture under license?

  3. Mark

    Using vessels like this for mhpc is surely only on the assumption that off board mcm capability works to the same of better that the current capability does it not

  4. All Politicians are The same

    I notice that there are no figures on sizes, length beam, draught or tonnage. No details on what this propulsion system is, or speed. More importantly no mention of cost.
    A nice promotional video but I will reserved judgment until they actually produce some figures.

  7. jedibeeftrix

    “Seems to me it has obvious synergies with the MHPC programme”

    A the cheerleader-in-chief for the SX119 i am delighted to agree.

  9. Mark

    Toc

    Yep and I see what your saying and hope that’s the case but in 1957 in an age of austerity we were assured in a defence paper that those expensive planes would be replaced with missiles. In 2010 we replaced the word missiles with unmanned systems and planes with anything that was expensive I fear 2010 will be as accurate as 1957.

  11. Dave

    A weird idea for the MHPC requirement ….

    The UMOE/Raytheon LCS variant.

    Building on the Oksoy/Alta Minewarfare vessels that are more effective in riding underwater explosions and taking further ideas from the Skjold and Qinetiq’s PASCAT, this could be an interesting plug and play corvette sized vessel.

    I’d be happier with this type of vessel than a traditional type hull for taking over from the Hunt/Sandown especially as we have no Airborne MCM capability

  12. Chuck Hill

    Keep in mind this is only the first round of a PR war between various ship yards in the US. This is a relatively large program, intended to procure 25 ships (at a relatively slow build rate). The Coast Guard will pick up to three contenders for development of detail designs before they pick a winner.

    The inclusion of a boat “hangar” was a bit of a surprise. I had been hoping for some reconfigurable space, but there is apparently no requirement for it in the specs (actually the detailed specs have not been released to the general public so I am making a leap here since none of the descriptions include it).

    Note, these ships are to be ice strengthened too.

    I have published several posts about this project. These are the most recent:
    http://chuckhillscgblog.net/2012/07/12/opv-to-opc/
    http://chuckhillscgblog.net/2012/06/27/opc-design-for-wartime-build-for-peacetime/
    http://chuckhillscgblog.net/2012/06/22/offshore-patrol-cutter-update-june-2012/

  13. H_K

    She’s going to displace ~4,000t, given those dimensions (100 x 16.4 x 5m draft – you can read the draft in the HD video).

    She’s a pretty big baby to replace <2,000t cutters.

  17. Fluffy Thoughts

    Are the Navy missing a trick here? If they started rolling-out MHPC alongside T26 could they not consolidate costs by building the former within the South-coast shipyards, whilst the latter could be built in the North and/or Scotland (2014 referendum permitting).

    At the same time the plastic boats of the MCM flotillas can keep soldiering on with kit-upgrades. [To 2050?] An industrial-support scheme (as identified in Gabbies’ recent DefenceManagement article) that could boost employment and increase defence capabilities. [I'll take fifty of the blighters.... :P ]

  18. Simon257

    Do RR Marine, have any Ship Yards anywhere in the world? Or are they just a design bureau, like BMT Defence?

  20. Waddi

    Re Simon,

    RR’s main subsidiary is UT based in Norway who have the capability of building a complete ship. What tends to happen is that the steel fabrication is done somewhere cheap, such as Chile for Iceland’s Thor, and then fitting out is done in Norway. No reason at all why work could be subcontracted to British yards. Thor all in cost was only about £35m but with limited combat equipment. Shows though what could be done on a budget.

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/thor-offshore-patrol-vessel/

  22. The Other Chris

    @WW

    Using Chrome’s automatic implementation of Google Translate for a web page:

    (Read with a French accent.)

    “The CMN unveil multi Offshore Patrol Vessel

    The Constructions Mécaniques de Normandie present a new design of multi Offshore Patrol Vessel. This platform is designed to meet the budgetary constraints of marine proposing a building with lower operating costs but also very versatile, able to fulfill not only the tasks traditionally assigned to patrol, but also other key functions, such as hunting mines, anti submarine and the fight against pollution. 79.2 meters long with a width of 13.6 meters and a draft of 3.6 meters, Vigilante 1400 CL 79, according to the adopted propulsion can reach a speed of 25 knots and cross 8000 miles at 12 knots. Designed to remain in operation for 30 days, she is armed with a small crew, comprising only 25 sailors, but can accommodate 25 additional passengers, such as special forces. To this end, the new patrol CMN, whose hull is made of steel and aluminum superstructure is equipped with a gateway 360 °, with two niches on each side for commando boats (RIB) of 9.5 meters.

    A high-performance system davits

    And this is the davit system of Norwegian Vestdavit was chosen to ensure the launch of semi-rigid. Considered high performance and retained including the German Navy frigates on the Type 124, this system, which is based on the equipment used in offshore, has a shock-absorbing device and a compensator roll and pitch (damped system with three axes of rotation), with management of the descent velocity depending on the state of the sea thanks to the shock wave and a hook to automatic release, all secures the best staff and equipment during launch operations and recovery of boats, which, depending Vestdavit and feedback from the German Navy be launching beyond a sea ​​state 5. The system would, in addition, highly reactive, since it would take less than a minute to launch a RIB, the operations that can be visually inspected from the bridge. These devices are launching, in fact, the principal weapon system of the Vigilante since 1400 CL 79 out of semi-rigid, they can also deploy other equipment, as will be seen later. Note also that a third boat of 9.5 meters can be mounted on the rear, its launch is ensured by a crane.

    Many modular spaces

    Means in terms of aviation, the patrol has a platform of 270 square meters, can accommodate a 10 ton helicopter NH90 type, and a shed for a 5 ton machine, as Panther, or unmanned aerial vehicles, including working SPCs, on this subject, with the Austrian Shiebel whose Camcopter S-100 UAV is the first of the Navy (tested on an experimental basis, this machine, which was accidentally lost this summer is soon to be replaced). Spread over an area of ​​180 m², the rear has, in turn, a crane with a capacity of 8 tonnes and 4 meters, outside storage area for a RIB, with a space to accommodate cargo containers, or used for the storage of specific materials. Containers fitted can also be used, for example for staff. They are then added to the premises located under operational helicopter platform. This modular space has direct access to the rear.

    CO and isolated single mast

    Reworked in terms of safety, ergonomics and seakeeping over previous designs proposed by the CMN, the new Vigilante has a Central Operations (CO) separate from the gateway to allow operators to work in away from the hustle and bustle often in the wheelhouse. In terms of electronic means, the building is equipped with C-Mast The mast single developed by CMN, Cassidian and Inéo, which houses a surveillance radar (type TRS-3D or Giraffe Sea), optronic systems, the electronic warfare and communication. The basic armament includes a barrel 20mm remotely operated, eg Narwhal Nexter, and carriages 12.7mm. But, if necessary, the patrol is also designed to implement the heaviest artillery, cannon up to 76mm, controlled by a fire control.

    Configuration mine warfare

    The Vigilante 1400 CL 79 was designed to meet a wide variety of missions, including monitoring and control of ocean space and maritime approaches, the fight against piracy and illegal trafficking, police fisheries, the collection of information and the implementation of commandos. But, and this is a great novelty, the Vigilante may also be configured building mine warfare and anti submarine. To this end, the CMN worked with the German Atlas Elektronik, one of the world leaders in the field. The patrol has thus been adapted for implementing drones and remotely operated vehicles type SeaOtter Mk2 SeaFox designed for the detection, identification and neutralization of mines. These resources would be deployed for systems launching boats. The modularity of the rear and premises, particularly those located in the platform helicopter will also accommodate all the infrastructure and equipment necessary to mine hunting operation but also anti-submarine warfare.

    The concept of OPV anti-submarine

    As such, the CMN also worked with Atlas to integrate the building system ACTAS ( Active Towed Array Sonar), an active sonar towed at low frequency, which can be deployed from the rear. opening of domain ASM on a building type OPV (Offshore Patrol Vessel) is indeed seriously considered in some staffs. Marines in northern Europe especially reflect this concept of employment in a context of fiscal restraint, which encourages limiting the use of large frigates anti-submarine, very expensive and too specialized for certain tasks. OPV with a means of ASM could thus be used in the fight against drug traffickers, who have developed the use of submersibles means, for example in the Caribbean. It could also perform intelligence missions and tracking and, in some cases, working in cooperation with a building with heavy equipment to intercept and neutralize underwater threats. Offensive capability can still be integrated into the patrol through the implementation of a helicopter equipped with means ASM, as lightweight torpedoes.

    Fight against pollution

    Another great advantage of patrol, in terms of versatility is its ability to take action against maritime pollution. For this purpose, the patrol can accommodate either a version of abatement “classic” including a boom deployed from the rear, a skimmer into the water and towed floating tanks; containerized version is developed by the company Lamor, more compact, with two lateral and recovery tanks towed. These solutions will be presented at the next EURONAVAL NMCs also work with the company Ecocéane to propose a variant of the Vigilante with arms collectors can be deployed at the rear. The particularity of the concept is that the boat will maneuver recovery of pollution floating in reverse order to optimize the collection of waste while better protecting the hull. As for mine warfare, the premises can be used for modular home teams and specific hardware.
    Strengthened by this new concept, CMN, already in discussion with the ship export, have to offer the Navy in the program BATSIMAR, which should result in an order for 18 buildings surveillance and response maritime intended to replace all patrol and surveillance frigates French.”

  23. Waddi

    Choice is yours:-

    1 Type 26 £350m-£500m
    2 BAE Khareef OPV £130m-£150m
    3 RR Thor £35m-£50m

    So for every one Type 26 could have say 2 Khareefs plus 4 Thors.

  26. All Politicians are the Same

    Waddi,

    How do you manage to make the upper end of the T26 unit price the lower end of yours?

    We could also get several thousand pedalos.

  27. Tedgo

    These ships with a forward bridge and accommodation are completely wrong for coast guard cutters and ocean patrol craft. I was watching one on video a few days ago, in heavy seas. The seas were about 6 metres but the wheelhouse was moving vertically about 10 to 12 metres with the hull pivoting about the centre. No theme park could design a better nightmare ride.

    North sea oil boats head for port when the weather gets bad, whereas CG cutters and patrol craft often have to set out on search and rescue missions in such conditions.

    Patrol craft need the bridge and accommodation well away from the bow, like the Holland class.

  29. x

    These pedalos are they big ones I see in the holiday photos of others? If so will they be fitted for but not with a slide or will they be fitted for but not with a parasol? The people have a right to know.

  30. Waddi

    @ x

    Probably, plus they will be late, over budget, have been redesigned twice whilst being built and once in service will be retired early.

  38. The Other Chris

    Playing devil’s advocate for the X-Bow concept (because a centrally positioned wheelhouse making use of the centre of gravity is sensible):

    One of the goals of X-Bow was to damp out the movement of the vessel in really heavy seas: Reduce amount moved and/or spread this movement out over time so it’s not as sudden or jarring.

    This has the benefit of allowing the superstructure to be mounted further forward and increase the available deck space aft for cargo, hangars, mission decks, rocket-assisted A400M launching pad etc, etc.

    Quick reminder video:

    Interesting bit starts around 1m24s, highlighting the increased damping effect over similar draught/weight vessels. Also replay the video from the beginning to see passing through waves instead of attempting to ride over the top and/or slamming into the water.

    Whether this is better than a more traditional centre of gravity approach… -shrug-.

    I’m just highlighting the design goals.

  39. mickp

    Tedgo’s point is a great one and highlights the quality of analysis and debate on this board. There we were getting all excited about the Vigor and we then get, if true, a showstopper. Having said that I would hope Vigor have factored that issue into their design. Perhaps the x-bow and an apparently slight setting back of the accomodation would counter those problems? Other than that minor(?) issue, the spec of this is really on the money in my view to cover future patrol needs in FI, WI, Gib and UK shores, assuming of course the price is right. Tough design, decent range, adequate but not gold plated weapons fit and decent facilities for boats and helo

  41. The Other Chris

    Addendum: Would the larger Ulstein design improve sea handling through size alone? We’re definitely looking at a larger vessel than the centrally positioned designs linked above.

    Does the slightly further aft positioning of the Vigor variant’s wheelhouse/bridge (due to the gun mount) provide equivalent or superior keeping for remaining at sea when combined with the bow design?

  42. x

    @ TOC

    “Everything” in warship wants to be near the CoG (the metacentre) whether it be crew, sensor, or helicopter because that is the “point” that moves the least. Having the bridge further back a few meters isn’t much help if you are still several decks high. As well as pitch you have to think about roll too. Personally I think the Damon Sea Axe is a better hull form. There is nothing really in letting water full on to and off the hull. Just look at how a Leander used to move through the water. Or its sister the Canadian St Laurent (with its turtle back and high break water).

  43. Tedgo

    The conditions in the video above are quite mild. Unfortunately I cannot find the Video I viewed as I came across it by chance, but the seas were steep with a very short wavelength. Perhaps 1/3 of the boat was out of the water, towering above the wave trough.

    Under these conditions most ships heave too, that is they tread water making no headway. Not necessarily an option for a coast guard cutter on a call out.

    As to costs, Ulstein boats are built in east European yards and fitted out in Norway. Two of the Holland class boats were built in Holland and two in Rumania. Essentially Ulstein are orientated to compete in a commercial environment whereas Damen, who build the Holland class, are sole suppliers of warships to the Dutch Government.

    The Holland boats cost about £72M each, if one takes away the total unnecessary integrated mast at £27M each. A Scanter 4100 radar, as used on our River class, would have been adequate.

  44. Waddi

    Just emailed a Captain friend of mine, currently commanding a DSV in the South Atlantic off Angola. Key factor re CoG is weight and where it is, these are cargo vessels and are designed to carry heavy weights and or tow heavy weights so the sea gong characteristics change massively when under load. Most of these types of vessels do not have significant ballast tanks so can get “lively” when empty. Superstructure is often not that heavy it is the cranes etc. that add the weight. His ship has an enormous crane on one side of the rear deck and therefore requires careful ballast/stowing of cargo. He also points out that the North Sea is officially the choppiest sea in the world and just like a previous commentator said is only ever seasick when he is operating there.

  46. WW

    @TOC
    Don’t need it myself for French, but thanks for the hint. Could use it for other languages. The translation is acceptable although some imagination may be usefull (shed=hangar,building=vessel, …)

    @ST
    French Navy program BATSIMAR initially aims at replacing all patrol boats (between 10 and 18 units). Some also talk about replacing the remaining A69 aviso’s (now used as OPV’s) and the Floreal-class patrol frigates. In a one-for-one replacement program that could mean as much as 34 units. Is not going to happen, I think. Some see it becoming the French equivalent of the MHPC-program. The CMN proposal is positioned accordingly.

  47. martin

    I can see the point of the X bow for Offshore Supply Vessels which need massive amounts of room at the back. Looking at the video comparison with the more conventional OSV you can see its better. However we should really ask if a Cutter or Minor war vessel needs so much room at the back that we need a bridge so high up and so far forward.

    These vessel would be expected to go into harms way in Hurricanes and other bad weather events and I can see the point that having the bridge moving around so much is a big issue.

    I would like to say well done to all the commentators here. The standard of debate on Think Defence really is excellent and some of the newer commentators are really bringing it up another level. ( I am starting to feel a bit dumb and ill informed)

  48. Anixtu

    “Under these conditions most ships heave too, that is they tread water making no headway. Not necessarily an option for a coast guard cutter on a call out.”

    “These vessel would be expected to go into harms way in Hurricanes and other bad weather events and I can see the point that having the bridge moving around so much is a big issue.”

    Heaving to is always an option as long as you’ve got propulsion. What vessels are actually capable of effecting a rescue in hurricane conditions? There are limitations on any vessel, and there are limitations on the conditions in which SAR can be carried out.

  49. Swimming Trunks

    @ WW – Cheers.

    @ Martin – “I am starting to feel a bit dumb and ill informed” – I always feel that way…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>