US Naval Forces CENTCOM is hosting a MCM exercise May 6-30 with expected participation by more than 30 countries. The exercise is expected to
… exercise a wide spectrum of defensive operations designed to protect international commerce and trade; mine countermeasures, maritime security operations (MSO) and maritime infrastructure protection (MIP).
“This multidisciplinary defense exercise is focused on maritime security for commerce and trade from the port of origin to the port of arrival…Our planners have included events that address more of the security picture than just mines on the high seas.”
…New to this year’s exercise, MSO will introduce shipping escort, and visit, board, search and seizure operations. Industry representatives will also lead an oil spill response table-top discussion during the exercise.
The MIP portion of the exercise focuses on protecting maritime points of origin and arrival, such as ports or offshore terminals. This portion of the exercise will include shore and harbor security operations; visit, board, search and seizure teams; and specialized aircraft.
Aside from the mine hunting, sounds like it will include a lot of Coast Guard functions. With six 110s and deployable forces in the area, it appears likely the CG will have some part in the exercise. Last year two 110s acted as opposition forces. Hopefully this year, CG units will be among the Blue forces.
(Thanks to Lee for the lead)
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
The juxtaposition of the old USN amphib and the newer RFA LSD(A) auxiliary should be noted. Both motherships come from vastly different models and with hugely different costs of acquisition and operation. It begs the question does EVERY naval operation need an expensive warship to support it? I would add that the USN needs to be VERY thoughtful as it defines the AFSB rqmts (and not jump on the MLP bandwagon).
Would be interesting if a definition of mother ship requirements for WPBs/WPCs came out of this.
Chuck IMHO the USN is hopelessly lost when it comes to mothership rqmts definition. The modern navy thinks every boat op starts with a wet well which of course ignores decades of history especially during WW2 in the Pacific
Lee,
Interesting point, but we’ll never get there. Ideally, the end-users/operators should sit down, make a list of features/requirements, and govt. naval engineers should determine a fair-market price (in secret). Whoever bids closest to the secret amount gets the contract (that way bloated bids wouldn’t have a chance and underbidders who are just trying to win the contract, knowing there will be “cost-overruns” or try to sneak sub-standard materials in). Finally govt naval engineers would inspect construction to ensure the new vessel meets the standards. It’s not that hard, yet we won’t make it…
Bill a COMPLETELY logical observation on rqmts which the USN is reluctant to adopt~ In today’s Navy it all about threshold and objective and yes there is a TOP price the Navy program types and contracting officers have, BUT the contracting type trumps your method of making awards,