The homeland security measure provides $10.4 billion for the d Coast Guard, an increase of $292 million above the FY2017 requested level.
“This level supports a robust USCG operating expenses budget, including a grant program for commercial fishing safety, purchase of additional response boats, and funds for the National Coast Guard Museum,” says the Committee. “This bill also provides necessary increases for acquisitions, including funding long lead time materials for a tenth National Security Cutter, continuing activities associated with the Offshore Patrol Cutter, two additional Fast Response Cutters (for six total), and support for multiple sustainment efforts and program offices such as the C-130J, C-27J, and HH-65. The measure also includes program management and personnel costs associated with the Polar Icebreaker Recapitalization Project in addition to funding in the Senate FY2017 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.”
The Defense Appropriations Bill includes $1B for the Navy to build a new Icebreaker for the Coast Guard. We will have more to say about this later.
An interesting short piece on the fisheries protection operations of the Florida Wildlife Commission, including a look at a 57 foot 44 knot catamaran patrol boat they use to patrol the Dry Tortugas (Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary).
Reuters is reporting NATO is planning to expand their Migrant interdiction efforts, and the US will participate.
“NATO agreed on Thursday to broaden its operations in the Mediterranean to help the European Union stop criminals trafficking refugees from North Africa but will not act until the fate of rescued migrants is cleared up.”
The thing I found interesting was that reportedly the US provide a ship. Certainly there is a certain logic to using a Coast Guard ship for this mission, but it is unlikely. Not enough cutters. It is much more likely it will be done by Navy ships, that would be operating in the Mediterranean anyway, but it is almost certain that ship will have a Coast Guard team aboard.
Included in the post was the graphic above, which gives us an indication of where future cutters will be homeported:
Ketchikan, AK
San Pedro, CA
Pascagoula, MS
Atlantic Beach, NC
Cape May, NJ
One more WPC is expected to go to San Juan, so in about six months we should see a Webber class go to Ketchikan. Certainly its improved sea keeping compared to the 110s will be appreciated.
This is not, I’m sure, a complete list of future homeports, given that we expect 41 more of this class. I’m not privy to the home porting plan or how many will be in each port, but this looks like it will cover at least the next 18 months. It may cover a much longer period if more than one Webber class will be assigned to some of these ports, and that seems likely.
I would note that these homeports look good from a Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security perspective. Ketchikan and the inland passage has a lot of cruise ship traffic. San Pedro is near the huge Los Angeles port complex and the strategic ports of Long Beach and Port Hueneme. Pascagoula based ships potentially protect the ports of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico including the eastern approaches to the Mississippi River port complex and the strategic port of Gulf Port, MS. Atlantic Beach, NC is close to Cape Lookout and Cape Hatteras, but it is also close to the strategic ports of Morehead City, Sunny Point, and Wilmington. WPCs in Cape May, NJ could provide protection for Delaware Bay, including the strategic port of Philadelphia.
If any of our readers has access to the homeporting plan, and it is public knowledge, I would appreciate the information.
Zukunft was surprisingly “bullish” on the Coast Guard’s condition, noting that his procurement budget doubled in the current year, enabling the service to expand its National Security Cutter program to nine ships, to build 58 Fast Response Cutters and upgrade its command-and-control and fixed-wing aircraft systems. He said the Coast Guard this summer would award the biggest ship construction program in its history, for the Offshore Patrol Cutters.
Nice to see the Offshore Patrol Cutters getting closer, but it has taken a long time. We should note that this summer’s award for the OPC is not that big a contract, but it is a start.
We have had one good year. Congress’ largess (it certainly was not the executive) appears due mostly (but not entirely) to Huntington Ingalls Industries’ influence. Still it does create a precedence for larger, more reasonable, AC&I appropriations. Hopefully we will see the same sort of funding in FY2017. A tenth Bertholf is a possibility, If not, maybe we can move some of the OPC funding forward. Perhaps selection of the OPC builder will give us another strong advocate in Congress. I would hate to see funding levels go back to where they were before. Even $2B annually is not really anything like generous.
NOAA has published their annual report on the status of fish stocks for 2015 (pdf), and the news is generally good. The number of stocks “Over Fished” or subject to “Over Fishing” remain near all time lows. Some highlights:
Of 313 stocks with known status, nine percent are subject to overfishing (e.g. the harvest rate is too high).
Of 233 stocks with known status, 16 percent are over fished (e.g. the population is too small).
The number of stocks rebuilt to maximum sustainable yield since 2000 increased from 37 to 39 over the last year. Two Pacific coast groundfish stocks, canary rockfish and petrale sole have been found to have been rebuilt.
Forty-four stocks and stock complexes are currently under rebuilding plans.
The report is only seven pages and very readable with well done charts and graphics.
The report refers to their partners, but we know the Coast Guard should get a great deal of credit for making this success happen.
Still, US efforts have limits. “More than half of the stocks added to the overfishing list in 2015 were international stocks,” subject to fishing outside US jurisdiction.
NavyRecognition is reporting, “The EMILY (Emergency Integrated Lifesaving Lanyard) robotic lifeguard will be showcased by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) during the Sea-Air-Space 2016 Exposition held May 16 to 18 at the Gaylord Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland. The robot will also be displayed at the ONR’s booth (number 1004).”
“Outfitted in bright orange, red and yellow colors, each cylindrical EMILY buoy is 4-feet long and weighs 25 pounds. It’s powered by a jet engine system similar to a mini jet ski, shoots a water jet stream for propulsion and travels up to 22 mph. EMILY also has two-way communication radios, a video camera with a live feed to smartphones and lights for night rescues.
“‘EMILY is made of Kevlar and aircraft-grade composites and is virtually indestructible,’ said Mulligan, CEO of Hydronalix, a maritime robotics company. ‘The devices can be thrown off a helicopter or bridge and then driven via remote control to whoever needs to be rescued.'”
To me the description of its use and capabilities seems incomplete. For instance, could this be used to tow a rescue swimmer to a vessel in distress? and how was it “used to rescue nearly 300 Syrian migrants from drowning in the waters off the Greek Island of Lesbos”?
Looks like a piece of gear we should look into. If one of our readers gets a look at it, I would welcome first hand impressions.
Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII, builder of the Bertholf class cutters) is sponsoring a Coast Guard Essay contest with the US Naval Institute.
“Challenge: Advance new thinking about the U.S. Coast Guard’s critical role in the 21st Century. No issue is too big or too narrow as long as it makes the Coast Guard stronger. This does not mean authors canot be critical and take on conventional wisdom and current practices. In fact, we encourage you to push the ‘dare factor.'”
Word Length: 3,000 maximum
Deadline: 31 August 2016
Submit to: essay@usni.org
Winners will be announced in the October Proceedings.
ARCTECH has completed the World’s first LNG powered (dual fuel capable, low sulfur diesel or LNG) icebreaker, NB501 Polaris, for the Finnish Transport Agency, and it is currently in sea trials.
The vessel will be able to move continuously through about 1.6 meter thick level ice, to break a 25 meter wide channel in 1.2 meter thick ice at speed of 6 knots, as well as to reach 9…11 knots of average assistance speed in the demanding icebreaking conditions in the Baltic Sea. In open water the service speed will be 16 knots.
Reportedly “It will also be able to perform oil spill response operations, emergency towing and rescue operations.”
Its dimensions are 110x24x8 meters or 361x79x26 feet. Its propulsion comes from three azimuthing propulsors totaling 19kW or about 25,500 HP. Specs here (pdf).
Crew requirements are tiny at 16.
With a 30 day endurance, it does not have the range the Coast Guard needs for Polar Operations, but with 180% more horsepower than the Mackinaw, it would make a great Great Lakes icebreaker. The US certainly has a lot of LNG. Would be good for the environment too. (Of course it would have to be built in the US, but using a foreign design is not a problem for the Coast Guard.)
We have talked about the need for a small missile to deal with small, fast, highly maneuverable threats, with less chance of collateral damage than is inherent in using guns. We have talked about Hellfire, Brimstone, Griffin, and guided 70mm rockets. Now it appears there is now an even smaller and much cheaper weapon that seems almost ideal for this end of the target spectrum. It has been in development for quite a while, but appears ready for production. Its range and precision appear to be much better than the machine guns we are currently using.
The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake has developed a very small missile called “Spike,” and the price is right–a marginal coast for each additional missile of only about $5000. This should not be confused with the Israeli missile family also called Spike. The following from the Wikipedia entry on the system:
Spike was designed by the U.S. Navy, with assistance from DRS Technologies, and is proclaimed to be “the world’s smallest guided missile.” Initially made to be carried by U.S. Marines, with three missiles and the launcher able to fit in a standard backpack, it weighs 5.4 lb (2.4 kg), is 25 in (640 mm) long, and 2.25 in (57 mm) in diameter. The warhead weighs about 1 lb (450 gr) and employs the Explosively Formed Projectile (EFP) effect, made to penetrate before detonating. It is powered by a small rocket motor that gives it a range exceeding 2 mi (3.2 km), making it safer and more accurate than rocket propelled grenades (RPGs). The missile is directed to its target by either an electro-optical (EO) or semi-active laser (SAL) seeker; the EO camera is similar to a basic cellphone camera, containing a 1-megapixel video camera that allows the shooter to select the area to engage in a fire-and-forget mode. The EO seeker cannot operate at night, so the SAL would have to be used. A third targeting mode is inertial, meaning the user can “snap and shoot” at a target without needing to lock on out to 200 meters. Both the Spike missile and reusable launcher each cost $5,000 and weigh 10 lb (4.5 kg) loaded, compared to 49 lb (22 kg) for a Javelin missile and fire control unit.
It has an unusual development history, being developed in house, quickly, at low cost, in response to a “rapid development capabilities” (RDC) program. Consequently the government now owns the design and can be assembled by contractors with no prior missile manufacturing experience and uses Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) components.
It is included in the FY2017 Navy budget along with Griffin and Javalin as program element 3342: “Griffin Missile” intended to develop and deliver Counter-Swarm Small Boat defense capabilities for the Surface Fleet. (It is also interesting to see that this program still anticipates the use of the Griffin missile system (GMS) by the LCS even though the Long Bow Hellfire has already been selected to arm these ships.)
The missile is reportedly also effective against UAVs, helicopters, and some general aviation aircraft, so it should offer a degree of defense against attacks using these types of platforms.
Where should we have them? The six WPBs stationed in Bahrain and the two force protection units at King’s Bay and Bangor that escort SSBNs as they transit from homeport to deepwater come to mind as perhaps the highest priority, but we have at least 30 ports that need protection. Total distribution of the systems might be slightly more than 200 including ultimately one for each of the 37sectors, 58 Webber class WPCs, 73 Marine Protector class 87 foot WPBs, plus 34 larger ships.
If the reported costs are correct a unit might be outfitted with a shoulder launcher and three missiles for as little as $20,000. If so, 200 weapon sets would cost only $4M and they would presumably be paid for by the Navy over several years.
Of course, if we are going to use their semi-active laser homing capability at night, we will need to get past current restrictions on the use of lasers.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 