I have a somewhat naive question regarding the overall capability of the new Deepwater cutters vs less expensive foreign counterparts.

Specifically, what missions can the Deepwater NSC and OPC perform that, say, a NZ Protector OPV can't?

I realize the NSC ($~500 million each) and OPC ($?? each) are significantly more capable, but they are also many times the price of the Protector OPV ($~60 million).

Perhaps a more useful way of framing the question is, what can a single NSC do that a cost-equivalent number of Protectors (eight) can't do?

The Protectors can't carry an H-60 - they are limited to A109-sized or Seasprite-sized helos - and each can only carry one helo vs two on the NSC. But 8 Protectors can carry 8 A109s vs a single NSC's 2 H-60s.

The NSC has higher speed, endurance and range, but 8 Protectors can generate more ship-days at sea, and be in more places at once.

The NSC is better armed and has a much better C4ISR suite, but does that really provide enough of an advantage to outweigh the Protector's hull numbers?

Are the expensive Deepwater cutters really a better option than a barebones foreign OPV design like the Protector?

<ACTIVE HYPERLINK REMOVED>

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 1110,

The cost of building a ship in the U.S. is not dependant on where the vessel is designed. You cannot compare the cost of a ship built in any other part of the world with a ship built in the U.S. Apples and oranges.

A major part of any acquisition plan is market research, and cost analysis. If we find a foreign designed vessel that meets our operational needs and makes a good business case, great, however, we are required by law to build it in the U.S. with U. S. Labor and a majority of U. S. materials.

Having said that, I believe it is a bad idea to let cost drive capability. Capability should be defined by operational requirements. Once we define our operational requirements, then we can go out and see what’s available in the market place and see what will work and what won’t.

The proof is in the pudding with the Sentinel (FRC).

A few criteria for the NSCs that couldn't be ignored was the range of at least 12000 miles and speed. The reason for these two were to meet DOD agreements for task force duty.

With any trade (8 OPVs vs 2 NSCs for example) it is possible that cost may not increase with the build, but would increase the operation cost over the lifetime of the cutter (crew/fuel/stores/parts) and then there is the question of the ops life expectency (is it shorter than the NSCs), the seastate survival comparision......and on and on