DIY Fleet Mix Study

The Coast Guard has not published its “Fleet MIX Study” though we have had some indication of the results of an early iteration.  A GAO report gave us this:

Table 1: Alternative Fleet Mix Asset Quantities According to Coast Guard’s Phase 1
Fleet Mix Analysis, Surface/Aviation Platforms

————————Program of record/Fleet mix 1/Fleet mix 2/Fleet mix 3/Fleet mix 4 (objective)
NSC                                        8                        9                     9                       9                            9
OPC                                      25                      32                   43                    50                           57
FRC                                      58                      63                    75                   80                           91
HC-130                                22                      32                    35                   44                           44
HC-144                                36                      37                     38                  40                           65
HH-60                                 42                      80                    86                   99                         106
HH-65                                102                    140                    15                   188                         223
UAS, Land-Based              12                       19                     21                     21                           22
UAS, Cutter-Based            18                       15                     19                     19                           19
Source: December 2009 Coast Guard data.

Later, I looked at the requirement for large cutters based only on the size of the EEZ and continental shelf size that seemed to indicate we need a lot more emphasis in the Pacific.

In a comment on that post, “Desk Riding Cutterman” gave us his interpretation of the number of ships the Coast Guard needs on patrol for various missions “based on my personal ranking of each mission area and an assumption that our fleet is not limited by the proposal make by ICGS nearly 10 years ago.

Generally you have the following needs:

D1: 2.0 for SAR coverage
D5: 1.0 for LMR/SAR/PWCS
D7: 4.0 for Florida Straits and Windward Pass plus other threat areas and LMR enforcement
D8: 1.0 for LMR enforcement
D11: 0.5 for CONUS enforcement and Southern WOC fisheries
D13: 0.5 for CONUS enforcement and Northern WOC fisheries
D14: 1.0 for Western fisheries
D17: 2.0 for offshore SAR (1.0 during summer) and berring fisheries
1.0 for RIMPAC and High seas drift net operations with Asian partners
2.0 for DOD deployments (AFRICOM, CENTCOM, and PACCOM)
6.0 for JIATF (3.0 in each theater)

I’d like to open up a discussion to talk about this. If you don’t have an all inclusive answer that’s OK, but what are the important consideration?

  • What do we need?
  • What do we need to be doing we are not doing now?
  • Are there any excess capacity?
  • What are the consequences of inaction?
  • What are the missions? Priorities?
  • Do we need ice capable arctic patrol vessels? How many?
  • Icebreakers?
  • Asset types?
  • Aircraft numbers/mix/location appropriate?
  • Geographic distribution?
  • Tradeoffs? Numbers vs capabilities?

 

Collision Between Block Is. Ferry and Morro Bay, 2008

NTSB results are out. (www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2011/MAR1101.pdf)

First, I read the New London Day article that the Coast Guard news and blog summary pointed to,

“According to the NTSB’s report, it found probable cause of the collision between the ferry Block Island and the Coast Guard cutter Morro Bay was caused by the failure of the bridge watch officers on both vessels to monitor their radars, sufficiently assess traffic, and compensate for limited visibility. Contributing to the accident was the failure of the bridge watch officers on both vessels to maintain a proper lookout and to sound appropriate fog signals….The Coast Guard promised to use fog signals and to post lookouts in such conditions in the future.”

It was really a very minor accident, but it could have been a lot worse. From the NTBS report:

…The ferry was carrying a total of 305 people and the cutter had 21 crewmembers on board. As a result of the collision, two passengers on the Block Island sustained minor injuries and were treated and released that same afternoon. The Block Island sustained about $45,000 in damage and the Morro Bay about $15,000. “

In fog, with visibility estimated at 500 yards, Morro Bay was not sounding fog signals or keeping a proper lookout? Reading the newpaper account, my thought was, “what could they have been thinking?” but of course it was more complicated.

Morro Bay had just completed a yard period. The captain had relieved the previous day. This was his first voyage as CO. After getting underway the rudder indicator was found to be five degrees off, and the throttle was not functioning properly. But both of these were corrected quickly. They actually were sounding fog signals, but, as the they had on every previous voyage in the crew’s memory, they were using a loud hailer that it turned out did not produce the 130 dB required. The cutter’s radar overlay and the electronic chart were out of alignment with each other and the gyrocompass was giving erratic readings. Recognizing that the the gyro was misbehaving, the radar was switched to head up, so the radar was not as stable or as useful as it should have been, and the helmsman was steering by magnetic, which also distracted the OOD. Two EMs were on the bridge, trying to trouble shoot the gyro. The collision occurred at 1215, as crewmembers were going to, or returning from lunch. During the period preceding the collision there were always five to seven people in the pilot house. There were numerous small craft in the area. There had been a close call with a power boat approximately 30 feet long, that the radar reportedly failed to pick up, only five minutes earlier, prompting the OOD to recognize visibility had gone from about two miles down to about 500 yards. He attempted to contact the CO, who returned from lunch only moments before the collision.

The Block Island ferry certainly was not blameless. It was going 15 knots and not using its automatic fog signal, preferring to sound them manually, although the captain admitted he may have gone up to five minutes between signals and their part time lookout was inside the pilot house with the doors closed.

The vessels were in a crossing situation with the ferry on the Morro Bay’s starboard hand, the ferry heading South and Morro Bay generally West.

On the Morro Bay, “everyone was a lookout,” so no one was, and specifically no one was stationed outside the enclosed bridge where they might have had a better chance of hearing a fog signal, although at least windows on the bridge were open. No one was specifically charged with monitoring the radar which was set on the 1.5 mile scale. Closing speed would have been approximately 18 knots, meaning the ferry would have transited the 1.5 miles covered by the radar in approximately 5 minutes. Quoting the NTSB report,

“Because the Morro Bay’s radar range scale was set to 1.5 miles, it is understandable that the Block Island did not appear on the cutter’s radar until probably about 1208 or 1209, some 11–12 minutes after the ferry had already entered the open waters of Block Island Sound. It was only then that the outer limits of the cutter’s 1.5-mile radar range scale would have picked up the ferry. Nevertheless, even after the Block Island would have appeared on the cutter’s 1.5-mile radarscope about 1208 or 1209, no one on the Morro Bay noticed the ferry on the radar screen, and a close quarters situation was allowed to develop in spite of properly functioning radar equipment. About this time, numerous personnel changes had taken place on the cutter’s bridge with people coming and going, which could have been distracting. Shortly before the accident, between five and seven persons were on the bridge, which was not an expansive space. The crossing of the 30-foot-long powerboat about 500 yards in front of the Morro Bay at 1210, 5 minutes before the collision, could also explain why the ferry continued to go unnoticed for the next few minutes. The chief took steps to ensure that the distance between the vessels opened, which was appropriate. However, while the chief watched the powerboat clear the Morro Bay’s path ahead, valuable time was lost in detecting the Block Island on the radar. Additional detection time (1–3 minutes, possibly) was also lost while the chief monitored the helmsman to ensure that he followed the order to return to original course after yielding to the powerboat. The chief also tried to reach the commanding officer by telephone to inform him of the decreasing visibility. The phone call took some time because the commanding officer was not immediately located (he was returning to the bridge). It cannot be determined who among the many persons on the bridge was monitoring the radar, or whether the radar was being monitored at all, during this phone call. The NTSB therefore concludes that the bridge watch personnel on both vessels failed to use their radars effectively in the minutes leading up to the collision.”

The ferry detected the Morro Bay when it appeared on one of its two radars then set on a 0.75 mile scale. The ferry captain “...immediately reduced speed, stopped the engines, and sounded the fog signal. He then reversed his engines” but apparently did not change course. On the Morro Bay, about 20 seconds after the Captain had returned to the bridge, they heard a prolonged blast to starboard. Moving to the starboard wing they “...saw the Block Island emerging from the fog, about 50–100 yards away. The chief pulled back on the throttles and ordered the helmsman to put the wheel to full port rudder.

—————————-

Reading the full report, made me a bit more sympathetic. Still, it’s a cautionary tale.

That the radar failed to pickup a 30 foot boat at 500 yards suggest that, despite a later finding it was working properly, this was not the case. Why wasn’t there some sort of minimal sea trial after the availability before starting for home, that would have picked up the problems with the rudder angle indicator, throttle, gyro, and possibly the radar? Shouldn’t district have insisted on it? But what about the manning? It was only a six hour trip. Too much to ask for an assigned lookout and someone on the radar? And why only use the 1.5 mile scale?

When things start getting difficult, it is alright to ask for help even before you really need it. That may have been happening when they heard the prolonged blast, but by then it was too late.

We were very lucky we did not have another Blackthorn or Cuyahoga or worse yet, a sunken ferry with 300 people in the water.

Britain’s New Antarctic Patrol Vessel, HMS Protector

3rd Street Promenade
The British are using unconventional means to provide for their need for a patrol vessel capable of operating in ice including patrols in the vicinity of the Falklands and supporting their Antarctic survey stations. They are taking a three year lease on an existing Norwegian vessel that has been used to support the oil industry. Additional modifications are planned including boats and weapons.
“Completed in 2001 and displacing 4,985 tons, she can act as a polar research ship or subsea support vessel, and has 100 berths.”
HMS Protector is filling an unexpected gap in their capabilities after accidental flooding almost sank the previous ice patrol vessel HMS Endurance in December 2008.

Ships vs. Areas of Responsibility

There are a lot of other considerations, but looking only at the waters under US jurisdiction, how does our large cutter fleet stack up? (All miles referred to here are nautical miles)

The US has the world’s largest EEZ, 11,351,000 km sq (3,393,921 mi sq). In addition there are 2,193,526 km sq (638,713 mi sq) of continental shelf under US jurisdiction. This is in addition to waters inside the territorial sea. The EEZ alone is larger than the total land area of the US.

Doing a little back of the envelope calculation, how well can our ships cover this area? The Coast Guard currently has 40 large patrol cutters and plans a fleet of 33. Typically, considering inport, maintenance and training, you need three ships to keep one on task. Best case, no more than half the fleet can be kept on patrol. So we can plan on having no more than about 16 ships on patrol and for the future, 11 would be more realistic.

If we consider the area of responsibility as roughly 4,000,000 mi sq, that is about 250,000 to 363,363 mi sq per ship. Thinking of the ships as response units, responding to SAR or sightings by maritime patrol aircraft, how far apart are the ships? The areas of responsibility are not square, generally they are 200 miles wide, so dividing by 200, ships are, on average 1,250 to 1,818 miles apart.

Next I looked at where our areas of responsibility are relative to the ships. Using seaaroundus.org, this is how it breaks out:

  • Location                            Area in km sq.
  • Alaska:                                      3,770,021
  • Hawaii:                                     2,474,884
  • East Coast:                                   915,763
  • West Coast:                                  825,549
  • Gulf of Mexico:                            707,832
  • Caribbean Islands:                       211,429
  • Other Pacific Islands:             3,328,925

Or by percent per fishery council:

  • New England Council 2%
  • Mid-Atlantic Council 2%
  • South Atlantic Council 4%
  • Caribbean Council 2%
  • Gulf of Mexico Council 6%
  • Pacific Council 7%
  • North Pacific Council 29%
  • Western Pacific Council 48%

Grouping these:

  • Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico: 16%
  • Pacific: 84%

If we look at where the ships are, there are 26 (65%) homeported in the Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico and only 14 (35%) in the Pacific.

If we do the same sort of exercise as above to determine average distance between cutters, we get:

  • Atlantic: 246 to 356 average miles between ships
  • Pacific: 2,400 to 3,360 miles

The Pacific areas of responsibility are getting roughly one tenth the coverage of those in the Atlantic.

It appears the areas around the islands South and West of Hawaii are particularly under served, particularly considering the scarcity of other Coast Guard assets such as WPBs, SAR stations, and aircraft in these areas.

Map of the EEZ zone.

It might be assumed there is relatively little activity out there, but while I haven’t been able to get current figures, in terms of value of fish landed, in the late 1990s, Pago Pago, American Samoa was the number one fishery port in the US, ahead of Dutch Harbor and New Bedford, and Agana, Guam was number four. (www.wpcouncil.org/documents/value.pdf)

A little time spent at this site suggest most of these areas’ fisheries need more protection.

There are a lot of considerations in determining a proper fleet mix. Congress has been waiting for the Coast Guard’s plan. I hope we see it soon. I’ve heard the Offshore Patrol Cutters are in danger because we haven’t shown a return on the investment. Basically, if there are no large patrol cutters, we are abandoning our stewardship of the EEZ. How much is that worth? Testimony before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, has indicated that our fisheries alone support more than 1.9 million jobs and generate $163 billion in sales impacts.

We certainly need more than 35 large cutters. To get the average distance between cutters down to an average of 1,000 miles, we would need close to 60.

But even if the size of the fleet doesn’t increase, we need to consider putting more in the Pacific, particularly the 14th District that includes almost half the US EEZ. To meet a standard of an average of no more than 1,000 miles average between ships in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico would require only ten ships. We have six WMECs (five 210s and a 270) homeported in Florida, presumably primarily for drug and migrant interdiction. As the Webber Class come on line, they may be able to take over some of this task. Yes, there are lots of other things to consider, but this needs to be part of the decision. perhaps 210s could be moved to Guam, Pago Pago, and Honolulu and some 270s into the Pacific.

Venezuela’s New Offshore Patrol Cutter

In 2005 Venezuela began a program to provide security for their Exclusive Economic Zone that they refer to as POVZEE (patrullero oceánico de vigilancia de la zona económica exclusiva). The program called for the construction of eight ships to perform what we recognize as Coast Guard functions. Four of the ships were intended to patrol the EEZ and four smaller ships were planned to patrol closer to shore.

Venezuela recently took possession of the first of four larger 99 meter Patrol ships (PC-21, 22, 23, 24) (Video here. It is almost 10 minutes, and the interview is in Spanish. It only provides a pier level, port quarter view and views of some sensors. A clearer port quarter view with the stern gate down is here along with a close up of the CIWS.) They have already received two of the four smaller 22 knot, 1,720 ton, 80 meter vessels (GC-21, 22, 23, 24) that lack hangers but are otherwise similar (pictures of these smaller ships are at the bottom of this page).

These larger ships look a lot like what we might expect the Offshore Patrol Cutters (OPC) to look like.

  • Length: 98.9 meters (324.5 ft)
  • Displacement: 2,419 tons (full load)
  • Beam: 13.6 m (44.6 ft)
  • Draft: 3.8 m (12.5 ft)
  • Depth to main deck is 7.2 m (24 ft)
  • Accommodations for up to 92
  • Maximum speed: 25 knots
  • Endurance 3,500 nmi @ 18 knots (too low for our needs, but no one else builds conventionally powered ships with the endurance of Coast Guard cutters)
  • Combined diesel and diesel (CODAD) propulsion system using four MTU diesel engines rated at 4,440kW each for a total of 17,760kW (23,807 HP), twin Wärtsilä Propulsion controllable-pitch propellers
  • Two rigid hull inflatable boats (RHIB)
  • Flight deck and hanger.
  • Armament: OTO Melara 76mm, forward,  Oerlikon 35 mm “Millennium Gun” aft,  and 2x.50 cal.

Venezuela’s EEZ is only one 23rd that of the US. If the US had a program with a proportionate level of effort to protect its EEZ, the Coast Guard would have 184 large patrol cutters.

Considering their apparently close ties, it is somewhat surprising that the Venezuelans chose a Spanish shipyard and European weapons over the Russian alternatives. Spanish shipyards used to be very inefficient, frequently taking ten years to build a warship, but Navantia, where these ships are being built, appears to be quite competitive, building ships for Norway, Australia, and Thailand as well as the Spanish Navy. Perhaps the common language had an influence, or perhaps it is because the Venezuelans have seen Russian systems in action, that they decided to go European.

The choice of the 35 mm “Millennium Gun” is a bit surprising. The only other user is the Danish Navy. But looking a little closer, it is understandable and, if the USN also adopted it, it might be a good option for the Coast Guard as well. The mount weighs is only half that of the Phalanx. Whether it is as good an anti-missile weapon as the Phalanx is debatable, but it is almost certainly better as an anti-ship weapon (Lockheed Martin video of the gun here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ogwfPrV1fk).

There is a stern gate that looks like it may be for launching a boat but I’ve seen nothing that states it’s purpose.

Libya, Innovations in Maritime Terrorism

There have been some developments in Libya that might be of interest to the Coast Guard. Pro-Qaddafi forces have been trying to cut off aid arriving through the port of Misrata. April 29 loyalists attempted to lay mines in a novel way and on May 16 they attempted to use what has been described as a “Vessel Borne Improvised Explosive Device.”

Mines have been laid by ships, airplanes, and submarines. In this case, the Libyans attempted to lay mines by transporting them to them on inflatable boats and then sinking the boats with the mines still aboard.

In their latest attempt they deployed two RHIBs, one was rigged with approximately a metric ton of explosives and mannequins while the second RHIB operated in support.

What they intended to do with boat was not clear. I can’t see it being effective against an alert warship underway. This looks a bit like the attack on the Cole, but it was not a suicide attempt. The briefing suggests that the plan might have been to lure a curious NATO warship alongside on the pretext that it was in distress, but looking at the picture of the boat with a very large makeshift box containing the explosive,  forward of the conning station makes that appear unlikely. Attacking a civilian craft, either in a channel or in port, seems more likely. Sinking an aid ship or a ferry loaded with refugees might have been the objective.

Eaglespeak has the story, pictures, and a link to the NATO briefing (scroll up, the link takes you to the foot of the post).

Online Float Plan Guide

The Auxiliary has come up with an online site that supports the often heard recommendation that boaters use a float plan. It looks to be very complete and well thought out. Not only does it provide a format for the float plan, it also provides guidance for the person holding the float plan on what to do if there is an apparent emergency. Access is here: http://floatplancentral.org/