MarineLink has a wide ranging interview with the Commandant dated 4 Dec., 2018. The interview is from a Marine Industry prospective, so the flavor is a bit different from what we see from Defense oriented interviewers, more about the prevention side, still a lot of interest in the Polar Security Cutter program. Perhaps the most informative section concerns cyber and what the Coast Guard is doing about cyber threats.
The following is a release from the Acquisitions Directorate.
Coast Guard Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Program, in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), today launched two 6U CubeSats from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The launch is part of the Polar Scout project to evaluate the effectiveness of space-based sensors in support of Arctic search and rescue missions. Knowledge gained from this demonstration will be used to inform satellite technology recommendations for many potential applications within the Coast Guard and across DHS.
Jim Knight, the Coast Guard deputy assistant commandant for acquisition, said in ceremonies leading up to the launch, “The Polar Scout project presents an opportunity to evaluate the most efficient way to ensure that the United States can project surface presence in the Arctic when and where it is needed while filling an immediate Search and Rescue capability gap in these remote areas.”
The CubeSats, dubbed Yukon and Kodiak, were launched into a low-earth polar orbit on a rideshare with other spacecraft from 17 different countries. This economical alternative to a costly single-mission launch ensured dozens of spacecraft from various organizations reached orbit. Success of the mission was due to public and private sector collaboration throughout the process, from developing the CubeSats to propelling them into space.
“In order to demonstrate, test and evaluate the viability and utility of CubeSats for Coast Guard missions, the Coast Guard RDT&E Program has partnered with DHS S&T to conduct on-orbit testing of CubeSats using the Mobile CubeSat Command and Control (MC3) ground network,” said Holly Wendelin, command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance domain lead.
Developed as a potential capability bridge between the current 20-year-old international search-and-rescue architecture and its future successor, “CubeSats serve as a much smaller, more cost-efficient solution that can be easily implemented over a short period of time. Each are only about the size of a shoebox,” said John McEntee, director of Border Immigration and Maritime at S&T.
In the 18 months leading up to the launch, DHS S&T handled the fabrication of Yukon and Kodiak, which are tailored specifically to detect 406 MHz emergency distress beacons. At the same time, the Coast Guard Research and Development Center (RDC) deployed two ground stations – one at the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, and one at University of Alaska Fairbanks – using the MC3 architecture and network. The ground stations will receive all of the signals from the CubeSats during the demonstration.
DHS will begin testing and demonstrations using emergency distress beacons in the Arctic beginning in early 2019 and continuing through the summer. “The demonstrations will include downlinking 406 MHz emergency distress beacon data from the CubeSats using the deployed MC3 ground stations,” Wendelin said. “We will set the beacons off, the satellite should detect it and send signals back to the ground station.” The testing period is expected to provide critical knowledge on how CubeSat technology can be used to enhance Coast Guard and DHS mission performance.
The Polar Scout project is providing valuable insight on the process, cost and feasibility of acquiring and using organic satellites. The Coast Guard and DHS will use the knowledge gained from Polar Scout and the MC3 installs, market research and space mission design and assessments to develop satellite technology recommendations.
As Coast Guard missions become more challenging and complex, the use of small and inexpensive satellites has the potential for great impact. Potential uses for satellites include improving communication in the arctic environment, monitoring large areas for illegal activity and helping to locate persons lost at sea. Additionally, the use of satellites has the potential to reduce the time and resources spent on intensive aircraft searches as well as the risks associated with placing personnel in hazardous situations that only need sensors and communications on scene.
“Undoubtedly, the results and knowledge gained by the Polar Scout Satellite Project will lead to force-multiplying solutions for the Department, which is a big priority in this age of complex threat cycles,” said Bill Bryan, senior official performing the duties of undersecretary for the Science and Technology Directorate.
Through Polar Scout’s robust search-and-rescue satellite solution, the Coast Guard may be empowered to respond to maritime disasters with unprecedented speed, preserving lives and even cargo, along trade routes in the Arctic Circle.
Congress is back in session. It is likely the current Congress will attempt to complete the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Budget before the new Congress is seated in January.
On October 11, 2018, the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard held a public hearing entitled, “The Future of the Fleets: Coast Guard and NOAA Ship Recapitalization.” I feel I have been remiss in not talking about this earlier, but the topics are still in question and it appears all the major players in the sub-committee will be returning next year, although committee assignments may change. Despite the name of the hearing, the NOAA representative was unable to attend, so the entire hearing was about Coast Guard programs.
Unfortunately the hearing video was not posted on YouTube so I was unable to post it here. The Commerce Committee website with the video of the hearing, list of witnesses, and links to the prepared statements is here.
I’d like to call attention to the Congressional Research Service’s evaluation of the Coast Guard’s shipbuilding programs in the form of Mr. Ronald O’Rourke’s prepared testimony for the hearing. It is relatively short at 21 pages, and covers the Waterways Commerce Cutter (Inland tenders) and Polar Security Cutter (Heavy Polar Icebreaker) as well as the National Security Cutter (NSC), Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC), and Fast Response Cutter (FRC) programs.
As he has done frequently in the past, he makes the case for procuring cutters using Block Buy or Multi-Year Procurement as the Navy has done in some of its most successful Program. I have a hard time understanding why the Coast Guard has not taken advantage of this option. We had an opportunity to do it with the NSC, another with the FRC. Now we have the option of using Block Buy for the Polar Security Cutter (heavy polar icebreaker) and Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC). The recent Coast Guard Authorization Bill includes authorization to use Block Buy.
Conducting the hearing were:
- Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Chairman
- Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin), Ranking member
- Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi)
- Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut)
The video does not actually begin until about time 9:30
Senator Baldwin pushes “Made in America Shipbuilding Act” advocating that components as well as the ships themselves be made in America.
20:30 Admiral Haycock’s prepared statement begins.
26:00 GAO Ms. Marie Mak Director, Contracting and National Security Acquisitions, Government Accountability Office began her prepared statement.
Mrs Mak of GAO is again saying we have not made a good business case for the new icebreaker and that our planning is short term. Pointed to the Navy 30 year shipbuilding plan as a good example of long term planning.
29:30 Mr. Ronald O’Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs, Congressional Research Service began his prepared statement
An illustration of how useful long term planning can be is found in this quote from Mr. O’Rourke’s written submission, p.3:
“As one example of how…Congress has exercised its constitutional power to set funding levels and determine the composition of federal spending, during the period FY2008-FY2015, when the Navy’s shipbuilding account averaged about $14.7 billion per year in then-year dollars, there was recurring discussion about the challenge of increasing the account to the substantially higher annual funding levels that would soon be needed to begin implementing the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan. Projections were prepared by CBO showing the decline in the size of the Navy that would occur over time if funding levels in the shipbuilding account did not increase substantially from the average level of about $14.7 billion per year. Congress, after assessing the situation, increased the shipbuilding account to $18.7 billion in FY2016, $21.2 billion in FY2017, $23.8 billion in FY2018, and $24.2 billion in FY2019. These increasing funding levels occurred even though the Budget Control Act, as amended, remained in operation during those years. At the most recent figure of $24.2 billion, the Navy’s shipbuilding account is now 74% greater in then-year dollars than it was as recently as FY2010.”
Mr. O’Rourke pointed out that using Multi-Year contracting to procure the Offshore Patrol Cutters could save us $1B, enough to pay for the Polar Security Cutter (PSC or Polar Icebreaker) or the entire Waterways Commerce Cutter program.
He discussed increasing rate of OPC procurement.
He noted that there had been a reduction in the estimated cost of the Polar Icebreaker from an initial estimate of $1B to a projected cost of $2.1B for three ships. From pages three and four of his prepared statement.
Coast Guard’s Non-Use of Multiyear Contracting
In connection with my work on ship acquisition, I maintain the CRS report on multiyear procurement (MYP) and block buy contracting. In both that report and in testimony I have given to other committees in recent years on Coast Guard ship acquisition, I have noted the stark contrast between the Navy— which uses multiyear contracting (in the form of MYP or block buy contracting) extensively to reduce its ship- and aircraft-procurement costs by billions of dollars—and the Coast Guard, which to date has never used multiyear contracting in one of its ship or aircraft acquisition programs.
The Navy in recent years, with congressional approval, has used multiyear contracting for, among other things, all three of its year-to-year shipbuilding programs—the Virginia-class attack submarine program, the DDG-51 destroyer program, and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program. The Navy has been using multiyear contracting for the Virginia-class and DDG-51 programs more or less continuously since the 1990s. Savings from the use of MYP recently have, among other things, helped Congress and the Navy to convert a nine-ship buy of DDG-51 class destroyers in FY2013-FY2017 into a 10-ship buy, and a nine ship buy of Virginia-class attack submarines in FY2014-FY2018 into a 10-ship buy. The Navy is also now using block buy contracting in the John Lewis (TAO-205) class oiler program, and is considering or anticipating using them for procuring LPD-17 Flight II amphibious ships, FFG(X) frigates, and Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines. The Navy’s use or prospective use of multiyear contracting for its year-to-year shipbuilding programs is arguably now almost more of a rule than an exception in Navy shipbuilding. For Congress, granting approval for using multiyear contracting involves certain tradeoffs, particularly in connection with retaining year-to-year control of funding. In the case of Navy shipbuilding, Congress has repeatedly accepted these tradeoffs.
In contrast with Navy practice, the Coast Guard often uses contracts with options in its ship-procurement programs. Contracts with options can be referred to as multiple-year contracts, but they are not multiyear contracts. Instead, contracts with options operate more like annual contracts, and they cannot achieve the kinds of savings that are possible with multiyear contracts. Like the other military services, the Coast Guard has statutory authority to use MYP contracting and can be granted authority by Congress to use block buy contracting.
Questioning began time 33:00 I will try to summarize some of the discussion, but this is in no way complete.
33:30 questioned how the CG could meet increasing challenges with nearly 14,000 fewer major cutter OP Hours.
RAdm Haycock says new assets are more capable. (He might have noted that FRCs are more capable than Island class and can conduct some missions previously conducted only by major cutters.) He did favorably compare FRCs with existing 110s in Alaska, but perhaps missed an opportunity to push for more assets and/or higher rate of construction.
37:30 Senator Sullivan push to use shipyard in Ketchikan.
42:30 Why are we using predominately foreign made outboards rather than Mercury or Evinrude which are made Wisconsin?
Ans. We want to use American made products, but we also employ competition. We could create a demand signal that is not sustainable. Builders choose components, but must comply with Buy American requirements.
49:30 Senator Sullivan:
Suggestion that perhaps we could lease.
Ans. Design time has decreased as has price due to Navy assistance and use of parent design. Ship and power plant can be smaller than previously thought without loss of capability. Icebreaker will be based on Parent design. Cooperation with the Canadians. This has shortened time line and cost has come down. There are still some risks.
59:30 We have looked exhaustively at foreign designs. Our missions are very different. Our design will be based on yet unbuilt Canadian design (CCGS Diefenbaker).
Great Lakes Icebreaker–not enough resources, push to build a Great Lakes Icebreaker at least as capable as Mackinaw, some funding provided for design of a Great Lakes icebreaker, what are we doing?
We are looking at requirements. 140s are going through service life extension.
1:04:40 More on made in American requirements.
Ans. Sometime foreign made components can be problematic over lifecycle.
1:07:00 Senator Wicker
The Senator pushing for 12th NSCs.
NSCs are having a profound impact as we push border south
1:09:00 Polar Security Cutter, what about the fact funding is not included in House budget?
Ans. Will impact scheduling and the interest of the industrial base.
1:12:00 Senator Blumenthal
Concern about opioids, what additional assets do we need?
Talked about Unmanned Air Systems but really did not specifically address opioids intel which I would assume has more to do with importation by merchant ships through our ports.
1:15:00 CG museum. Committed to location at New London.
1:16:30 Admissions at the CG Academy–concern about possible discrimination
1:17:30 Senator Baldwin
1:18:00 More on “Made in America” components
1:20:00 Specifically referenced need to buy propulsion pods for Polar Security Cutter from Scandinavia.
1:21:30 Timeline for Inland tenders? Possibility of using parent craft?
Our needs are different. Have to have more people because of our missions, we need more range, mixed gender birthing. Probably nine months to complete analysis and a year before we start to contract. In service 2023. We are moving as fast as we can.
(Was pleased to note that RAdm Haycock made a strong witness and appeared both competent and cooperative.)
BairdMaritime reports the Chinese are building an all electric vessel for their Maritime Safety Administration, to be used “as a command ship for use in emergency pollution response, particularly in instances of pollution involving dangerous gases at sea.”
- Length: 78 meters (256 feet)
- Beam: 12.8 meters (42 feet)
- Design speed: 18 knots
- Range 1,000 nautical miles
Reportedly ower is to be provided by two sets of 650kWh high-performance lithium battery packs.
Maybe there is an error here? That only amounts to 1,743.3 HP/hours. My estimate would be that that would allow only about a half hour at 18 knots, an hour at 14, and two hours at 10, perhaps four hours at six. Appears it would take about 75,000kWh to go 1000 miles at 10 knots. Why would it even have a stack if there is no diesel engine?
Just in case you may have missed it. (Or your command did not tell you.) I am passing this along from Coast Guard All Hands.
Please join me and Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard Jason Vanderhaden for a “Virtual Coast Guard Town Hall” on my Facebook page, @CommandantUSCG, Tuesday at 2 p.m. If you don’t have access to Facebook, you can watch it here.
We’ll discuss our service’s recent successes, the Coast Guard Strategic Plan 2018-2022 and take questions from the field. You can submit questions in advance of the Facebook event on my page or tweet them to me at @ComdtUSCG on Twitter. We’ll also be taking questions live during the Town Hall, and I encourage all active duty, reserve, civilian, and auxiliary Coast Guard members to watch, share and ask questions.
Coast Guard leaders at all levels should afford crews the opportunity to participate in this event as a group or individually as operations allow. It’s important that we take time to focus on readiness and ensure our workforce has the information and tools they need to be successful.
I look forward to talking with all of you. Semper Paratus!
MarineLink reports that Volvo Penta has been contracted to provide power and control systems for seven meter, 26 foot, “Cutter Boat, Large” being built by Metal Craft Marine of Cape Vincent, New York. The engines are “Volvo Penta three-liter 220 hp diesel Aquamatic sterndrive systems with HD controls.”
The RIBs are designed for a top speed of 35+ knots carrying up to 13 passengers with an operating range of 200 nautical miles in up to four-meter wave heights.
A Sept. 6, 2018 Press release announced the award of the contract to Metal Craft Marine.
The Coast Guard awarded a firm-fixed price indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract Aug. 30, to MetalCraft Marine U.S. Incorporated of Cape Vincent, New York, for a fleet of cutter boats-large (CB-L).
The contract has a maximum value of $20 million and allows for the acquisition of more boats over an ordering period of five years. The initial delivery order for two CB-Ls, trailers, delivery, training and associated logistics documentation was placed for approximately $590,000.
The CB-L will replace the current fleet of 24-foot cutter boats in service onboard 210-foot medium endurance cutters, 225-foot seagoing buoy tenders, and Coast Guard Cutters Alex Haley and Mackinaw. The boats will support operations on the East, West, and Gulf Coasts, as well as in Hawaii, Guam and Alaska.
“We are very excited about getting this asset out to the fleet,” said Cmdr. David Obermeier, deputy program manager for boats acquisition. “A single boat class for multiple cutter classes will provide enhanced operational flexibility.”
Just passing this along in case someone with something to add may have missed it.
ALCOAST 398/18 – NOV 2018 2018 HURRICANE LESSONS LEARNED
U.S. Coast Guard sent this bulletin at 11/28/2018 07:32 AM EST
R 280722 NOV 18
FM COMDT COGARD WASHINGTON DC//DCO/DCMS//
SUBJ: 2018 HURRICANE LESSONS LEARNED
1. Recent hurricanes have underscored our imperative to be ready to respond in times of
crisis. To remain ready, relevant, and responsive in an environment of ever-changing
priorities and emerging needs, we must collect candid and detailed lessons learned.
2. To improve future incident response and recovery efforts, the Deputy Commandant for
Operations (DCO) and Deputy Commandant for Mission Support (DCMS) have opened a
discussion on CG_Ideas@Work to quickly capture this information. Please use the
following link to share your lessons learned. We are eager to receive your input,
regardless of rate, rank, or grade:
3. This discussion is not intended to supersede the official Hurricane Lessons Learned
collection on CGPortal, but rather provide a means to rapidly share ideas,
innovations, and lessons learned directly from the field to allow for accelerated
collaboration and communication across geographic areas and mission domains, while
knowledge is still fresh.
4. Preserving and institutionalizing the lessons learned from these major response
efforts will be invaluable to Coast Guard operations in future times of crisis.
All members are encouraged to participate!
5. For any questions please contact the Coast Guard Innovation Program Manager,
COMDT (CG-926), CDR Michael O’Neil at Michael.P.O’Neil@uscg.mil or 202-475-3049.
6. VADM Daniel B. Abel, Deputy Commandant for Operations, and VADM Michael F. McAllister,
Deputy Commandant for Mission Support, send.
7. Internet release is authorized.