To start with, to save money, the Coast Guard purchased an existing design from an English company. It was thought that the design, successfully used in the Indian Ocean, would meet Coast Guard needs. Unfortunately about the only design quality they had in common with Coast Guard needs was their size...and did I mention, they were CHEAP?
To start off, the existing design did not provide sufficient fuel for Coast Guard patrols, so our naval architects simply added additional fuel tanks to the design. Unfortunately, central to the design was a light aluminum hull structure that wasn't up to the stresses caused by the additional fuel tanks.
The first 110's delivered developed stress fractures in their hulls just transiting from New Orleans to South Florida in calm weather. This lead to significant design changes to strengthen the hulls. (This last modification was doomed to failure; the hulls were too light, already over-stressed and at the end of their effective life already.) The first time you stepped aboard a 110 you knew you were screwed...when you walked across the deck it feels sponging...the light construction.
Many of the 110 class were intended for operations in northern regions, including Alaska. Unfortunately, a design for the more tropical Indian Ocean, insulation/ventilation, isn't necessarily good for colder climates. In Alaska the interiors were either cold or were dripping wet from condensation...or both. On the funny side, the engine configuration weren't suited for colder climates either. Whenever they would be fired off on cooler days they would produce great quantities of what appeared as white smoke until the engines were warm. So much so that the local fire departments would come to a reported fired whenever they fired up the engines. In one S.E. Alaska town the cutter was forced to relocate it's berth to another location so it wasn't such a problem.
Another charming aspect of the design...did I mention it was CHEAP...was that you can't clutch down the screws. A great money saving feature but totally insane given the Coast Guard's missions. To illustrate the point, imagine that your car has no brakes, but you can put it in neutral, forward and reverse...but the slowest it will go in forward and reverse is 5 mph. Now, maneuver your way through a tight parking lot, parallel park, etc...remember, you can't use the brakes. Now think what it would be like if you had separate engines/controls for each side of the car which combined will move you forward/back at 10 mph.
The 110's were a temporary, stop-gap, CHEAP fix that should have never happened. They were never intended to remain in service and should have been replaced already. The crews deserve far better. (A side note on the insanity involved with this cutter class. Back in 86-87 (?) when we were escorting oil tankers thru the Gulf, there were actually plans to send some of these cutters over. The plans to make them combat ready was to put a 25mm gun on them. Fortunately an anti-ship missile would probably just pass right through them unless they hit an engine.)
As far as those cutters going out of service, it's not nearly as problematic as it sounds. Most likely there will be little to no loss of operational coverage as other resources fill the gaps (buoy tenders do a better job then most people would think) and some cutters go to rotating crews (much like nuke subs). This kind of up-tempo operations is Coast Guard bread and butter.
The real problem is with replacement cutters. We need a good, capable replacement for the 110's; not another CHEAP temporary replacement. Add to that, the Coast Guard's blue water fleet, the High Endurance Cutters, (to the average person they would look like a destroyer) are old, obsolete and seriously need replacement.
Hopefully their replacements will be nothing like those for the Medium Endurance Cutters (think small destroyer). The latest Medium Endurance Cutters were an absolute compromise; the DoD insisted that they have dedicated space for drop in missile systems, etc. Imagine your mail carrier's vehicle including mounts and dedicated storage for anti-tank missile systems, chemical warfare detection sensors, advanced guidance systems. Sure, if you need a letter delivered in downtown LA during a riot it will get there...but it's not much good in delivering your mail in suburbia in all kinds of weather.
Thanks for the insight and hopefully some enlightenment to the thread.
CWO--
How about the CG building some wooden 83 footers with upgraded engines instead of the old Viking II gas jobs---they should be able to kick them out at Curti Bay or a shipyard like Wheelers---then guys like me can volunteer again and do all the things we did 60 years ago---CMoMM Resflo 1 Normandy WW2
Thanks for the insight. Do remember when this contract was being bid, the hull had to be a "Proven Design." (Hull and propulsion plant had to been put together before). The problem was this type craft had not been built since the early 60's or before.
Like you mention the fuel issue. The hull was a "Proven Design," that was unchanged, but the CG completely changed the load of the vessel. The reason for the "Proven Design" was the CG has a terrible reputation of designing and buying camels (designed by committee) failures. This was to solve the problem. From personal business they have one of the most inept Engineering/Naval Archetecture groups on the planet. Personally would much rather deal with Navy contacts then ever get their spec. They create their own disasters.
CWOJackson, Thanks for the great information, and thank you for your service. The US Coast Guard deserves better equipment.
These island class boats were coming into service while I was a coastie in the late 80's. The ship I was on was a WWII era WLM class buoy tender, several decades past it's service life. It wasn't fun.
It doesn't seem right for a boat only 20 years old to have reached it's service life.