A Conversation with Admiral Karl Schultz, Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard–CSIS

CSIS and the United States Naval Institute (USNI) conduct an interview with Admiral Karl L. Schultz, the 26th Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, conducted 1 August, 2018.

Below I will attempt to outline the conversation, noting the topics and in some cases providing a comment.

The first question is about immigration. Coast Guard is the “away game.” minimizing the factors that push immigration to the US.

The Commandant does not expect a substantial increase in help from the Navy, because they are already heavily tasked, but would welcome any additional help.

06:30 Talk about Inland fleet. Congressional support is evident. $25M provided so far.

9:20 House Appropriations Committee decision to divert $750M from the icebreaker program to fund “the Wall” in their markup of the FY2019 budget bill. The Commandant is “guardedly optimistic”

11:30 Human capital readiness? Operating account has been flat and effectively we have lost 10% in purchasing power. Want to increase leadership training.

16:30 Support for combatant commanders.

18:00 Capacity building and partnering. Detachments working on host nation platforms.

21:00 Defense Force planning–Not going back to the MARDEZ model.

22:30 Situation in Venezuela/Preparation for dealing with mass migration.

24:30 Arctic forums–Need to project our sovereignty

29:00 UNCLOS

30:00 Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA)

32:30 Tracking cargo as an element of MDA

34:00 Cyber

36:15 High Latitude engagement/partnerships.

39:30 Perhaps the icebreaker should be the “Polar Security Cutter?”

40:00 International ice patrol, still an important mission.

41:00 CG role in response to Chinese aggressiveness in the South China Sea. In discussion with Indo-Pacific Command. Will see more CG presence there.

44:00 Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC)–on track

46:30 Border issue — passed on that

48:00 Small satellites–we are looking at them

49:00 African Capacity building/cooperation. May send an MEC.

51:30 Tech modernization. Looking at it more holistically.

Other Coverage:

This interview prompted a couple of notable posts.

SeaPower’s coverage of the discussion is here. They focused on the growth of demands on the Coast Guard.

Military.com reported on the possibility of a greater Coast Guard role in South East Asia and capacity building in Africa. It probably should be noted that the title, “Coast Guard Could Send Ship to Pacific to ‘Temper Chinese Influence’,”is a bit deceptive in that the Commandant’s remark about tempering Chinese Influence was in regard to Oceania, the islands of the Central and Western Pacific. The Commandant was quoted in the Seapower post, “In the Oceania region, there are places where helping them protect their interests, tempering that Chinese influence, is absolutely essential.”

ALCOAST 268/18 – AUG 2018 SOLICITATION FOR CUTTER NAMING SUGGESTIONS

First Lieutenant, Frank H. Newcomb, USRCS

Would like to call attention to an ALCOAST that solicits names for future Coast Guard cutters which I have reproduced at the end of the post. It refers specifically to naming cutters for people but I have to believe they will consider names of previous cutters for the Offshore Patrol Cutters as well.

Of the planned 58 Webber class WPCs, 54 have been named. That leaves at least four to be named, plus an additional six if they are built additional boats to replace the 110s in Bahrain.

Of the 25 Offshore Patrol Cutters, only eleven names have been identified.

Of the Bertholf class “National Security Cutters”, only nine names have been identified for the eleven funded, with the possibility of a twelfth, opening the possibility of two or three names.

Noticeably missing from the list are:

Newcomb, Frank H, captain of the cutter Hudson when it rescued the Navy torpedo boat Winslow.  The man was so respected the Navy named a destroyer after him. That destroyer managed to torpedo a Japanese battleship at the Battle of Surigao Strait and  subsequently survived five Kamikaze hits.

USS Newcomb (DD-586), awarded eight battlestars, was struck by five Kamikazes off Okinawa, but survived.

Cutter Hudson, itself

BREWSTER, Caleb, Revolutionary War/War of 1812 (One of the characters on the television series “Turn, Washington’s Spies.) Revolutionary War Spy, 20 years in the Revenue Cutter Service, and CO of the Revenue cutter Active during the War of 1812. http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/2014/07/caleb-brewster-revolutionary-war-hero/ also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caleb_Brewster

Lt. Thomas Crotty

CROTTY, Lt Thomas James Eugene, WWII, Mine warfare expert. Captured by the Japanese on Corregidor and died in POW Camp.

DEXTER, Dwight, CO of NOB Cactus, (Guadalcanal, WWII). Silver Star, “In action against an armed enemy as commanding officer of the Naval Local Defense Force and Anti-Submarine Patrol, Guadalcanal-Gavutu, Lieut. Comdr. Dexter landed with the Marines on August 7, 1942, and established and administered the Naval Local Defense Forces in these occupied islands until November 5, 1942, on which date he was evacuated due to illness. During the three months while he was in command of this unit, he was subjected to almost daily aircraft bombing attack and, for many weeks, to an almost nightly naval bombardment. Throughout this entire period, his courage, determination and zeal made it possible to maintain in operation a signal station and a boat operating organization which was essential to the successful unloading.”

WALSH, Quentin R., CDR, (Retired as Captain) USCG, Navy Cross, For heroism as Commanding Officer of a U.S. Naval party reconnoitering the naval facilities and naval arsenal at Cherbourg June 26 and 27, 1944. While in command of reconnaissance party, Commander Walsh entered the port of Cherbourg and penetrated the eastern half of the city, engaged in street fighting with the enemy. He accepted the surrender and disarmed 400 of the enemy force at the naval arsenal and later received unconditional surrender of 350 enemy troops and at the same time released 52 captured U.S. Army paratroopers.

There are a whole slew of candidate names listed here.

A LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel) from the U.S. Coast Guard-manned USS Samuel Chase disembarks troops of Company E, 16th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division (the Big Red One) wading onto the Fox Green section of Omaha Beach (Calvados, Basse-Normandie, France) on the morning of June 6, 1944. American soldiers encountered the newly formed German 352nd Division when landing. During the initial landing two-thirds of Company E became casualties.

Along with cutter names, it might also be appropriate to reprise names of Navy ships that were Coast Guard manned. Reference (a) para 5.b.(1) does state cutters may be named after “… other service ships that were manned by Coast Guard personnel.” Examples would include USS Wakefield (AP-21), USS Samuel Chase (APA-26), USS Hunter Liggett (APA-14), USS Leopold (DE-319) (sunk after being hit by an acoustic homing torpedo, 9 Mar. ’44, 171 dead), USS Menges (DE-320) (hit by an acoustic homing torpedo but survived), or USS Lowe  (DE-325/WDE-425) (which sank U-866 under CG command and was later transferred to the CG), USS Serpens (AK-97) (14,250 tons, destroyed as a result of an apparent internal explosion of its cargo, 29 Jan. ’45, 196 CG fatalities. Largest single loss of CG personnel)

I urge you to respond with your recommendations. It certainly would not hurt for the board to see the same name(s) recommended more than once.

—–

ALCOAST 268/18 – AUG 2018 SOLICITATION FOR CUTTER NAMING SUGGESTIONS

R 011457 AUG 18
FM COMDT COGARD WASHINGTON DC//CG-092//
TO ALCOAST
UNCLAS//N05700//
ALCOAST 268/18
COMDTNOTE 5700
SUBJ: SOLICITATION FOR CUTTER NAMING SUGGESTIONS
A. Policy for Naming of Cutters and Shore Facilities, COMDTINST 5726.10 (series)
1. The Coast Guard is recapitalizing its cutter fleet, continuing a process now entering its second decade. Each new cutter requires a name.
2. The Standing Board for the Naming of Cutters and Shore Facilities is soliciting nominations for worthy names of these new cutters. The Naming Board requests submissions from across the spectrum of Coast Guard stakeholders, including active, reserve, auxiliary, civilian, retired, family members, commercial maritime industry, and port partners.
3. Guidelines for acceptable submissions are outlined in REF (A). Specifically, “the actions of the individual must reflect Honor, Respect, Devotion to Duty, and must be in keeping with the highest traditions of the Coast Guard. The individual must be considered a distinguished Coast Guard person or someone who had a great influence on Coast Guard history. The individual must be deceased with sufficient time lapsed to ensure that the name will withstand the ‘test of time.’”
4. Such namesake submissions should have distinguished themselves and brought great credit upon the service by their actions. Others may have served as important leaders or as significant role models, path-reakers or trailblazers for those who might otherwise be underrepresented. The Naming Board encourages the submission of possible namesakes from across the spectrum of Coast Guard history, to include the junior ranks and less well known figures in Coast Guard history who have made important contributions to the service.
5. The Naming Board looks for submissions that will resonate with today’s Coast Guard personnel. Prospective cutter names should represent the diversity of our service and our rich heritage.
6. Please submit your nominations to Mr. Joshua Buck at Joshua.M.Buck@uscg.mil. Your nomination should include the individual’s name and a brief narrative summary of why you believe the individual would merit this honor. Please limit the summary to one page. The deadline for submissions is October 31, 2018.
7. The Naming Board encourages those who have already submitted names to resubmit their nominations for this latest cutter naming effort under this ALCOAST.
8. The Naming Board will publish a list of all names submitted in a future ALCOAST. Names not selected for the latest round of new cutters will be kept on file for future use.
9. For a list of names recently selected, please see:
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCG/bulletins/1cbb0e6
10. For more information please see REF (A) at:
https://media.defense.gov/2017/Mar/14/2001716387/-1/-1/0/CI_5726_10C.PDF
11. For questions please contact Scott Price, Chief Historian, at Scott.T.Price@uscg.mil or
call (202) 372-4653.
12. RDML Melissa Bert, Director of Governmental and Public Affairs, sends.
13. Internet release authorized.

 

Hull Vane Experiment on 52 Meter OPV

“This project video shows the process from design to sea trials of a Hull Vane retrofit on the 52 m Offshore Patrol Vessel Thémis from the French Affaires Maritimes. The installation was done by CMN Cherbourg, which was also the builder of this vessel (delivered in 2004).”

I have posted on this particular innovation before, twice in fact, in 2017, “Hull Vane Claims Improved Performance,” and in 2015, “Hull Vane on an OPV,” but now we have another example and new information. This time the example is a mid-life up-grade on a vessel slightly larger but otherwise similar to the Webber class WPCs, the OPV Thémis from the French Coastguard (Affaires Maritimes) 409 tons, 6,310 HP, 52.5x9x2.27 meters (172.2×29.5×7.45 feet)

MarineLink reported this experiment, but I also found an excellent report with more photos here.

The results of this trial:

Comparison with the benchmark sea trials – conducted in January in exactly the same conditions – by CMN’s sea trial team showed a reduction in fuel consumption of 18 percent at 12 knots, 27 percent at 15 knots and 22 percent at 20 knots. The top speed increased from 19.7 knots to 21 knots.

The earliest post, “Hull Vane on an OPV,” reported the effects of applying the innovation to a 108 meter Dutch Holland class OPV, a ship very much like the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC).

  • They claimed a 12.5% reduction in fuel consumption, overall. Specifically they claimed. “…runs were done to determine the resistance at 5 knots, 12.5 knots, 17.5 knots and 22.5 knots, showing resistance reductions of 1.3%, 13.7%, 15.3% and 11.1% respectively.”
  • A 4% reduction in heave,
  • A 7%% reduction in pitch, and
  • A 13% reduction in vertical acceleration at the flight deck.

A comment on this earliest post, received from the Hull Vane team, noted.

“The performance is better however on the fuller-bodied and wider-transomed hull shapes like the typical US Coast Guard cutters, which we would very much like to do some work on.”

The Hull Vane web site has a number of publications, testimonials, and case studies, including a Nov. 2017 report on a 25 meter patrol boat. that claimed a 20% reduction in fuel consumption. It also noted  “RPA 8 is the eighth vessel to be equipped with a Hull Vane®, and ten other ships which will have a Hull Vane® are currently under construction.”

As the new ships enter service, we will probably see the Webber class using more fuel than the 110s, and almost certainly the OPCs will use more fuel than the 210s and 270s.

I would think we would want to check this out, starting with contacting the Dutch Navy and the French Affaires Maritimes to get their take on the tests. Did they think they were successful? Are they going to use Hull Vane on their own ships? If not, why not? That would cost us very little. If the responses are positive, it would make a great R&D project. Bollinger might welcome the opportunity to try one out on a new construction Webber class. The baseline capabilities of the class are already well documented.

 

“ESG Conducts OPC Final Critical Design Review for the USCG”–NavyRecognition

Rendering of Coast Guard Offshore Patrol Cutter. Eastern Shipbuilding Image

NavyRecognitions reports that, “Eastern Shipbuilding Group (ESG) has successfully conducted its Final Critical Design Review (FCDR) with the United States Coast Guard on 29 June 2018 for the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) Program.”

Award for construction of the first of class, USCGC Argus, is expected in the Fall.

Guns for NSC and OPC–MilitaryAeroSpace–OPC Displacement

MilitaryAeroSpace is reporting that the Navy has issued a $16.4M contract for two 57mm Mk110 gun systems to equip an NSC and an OPC. There are no surprises here, but there is the most exact figure I have seen for the displacement of the Offshore Patrol Cutter, 3,730 tons. Presumably that is a full load displacement.

We knew the OPC was going to be bigger than the WMECs they replace, and I have published estimates as high as 4,000 tons. But how large is this, compared to our existing ships?

  • More than 3.5 times as large as a 210.
  • About 2.1 times as large as a 270.
  • 27% larger than the Alex Haley.
  • 22% larger than the WHEC 378s.

These are going to be very substantial ships.

Report to Congress on U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Procurement, 23 May 2018

OPC “Placemat”

Mr. O’Rourke has been busy, in addition to the report on Icebreakers, the latest edition of the Congressional Research Service report on Coast Guard Cutter Procurement, also by Ronald O’Rourke, was also published on 23 May, 2018. You can see it here. 

I have reproduced the summary immediately below.  Note that the price for the OPCs is already surprisingly low. 

The Coast Guard’s acquisition program of record (POR) calls for procuring 8 National Security Cutters (NSCs), 25 Offshore Patrol Cutters (OPCs), and 58 Fast Response Cutters (FRCs) as replacements for 90 aging Coast Guard high-endurance cutters, medium-endurance cutters, and patrol craft. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2019 budget requests a total of $705 million in acquisition funding for the NSC, OPC, and FRC programs.

NSCs are the Coast Guard’s largest and most capable general-purpose cutters; they are intended to replace the Coast Guard’s 12 aged Hamilton-class high-endurance cutters. NSCs have an estimated average procurement cost of about $682 million per ship. Although the Coast Guard’s POR calls for procuring a total of 8 NSCs to replace the 12 Hamilton-class cutters, Congress through FY2018 has funded 11 NSCs, including two (the 10th and 11th) in FY2018. Six NSCs are now in service, and the seventh, eighth, and ninth are scheduled for delivery in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2019 budget requests $65 million in acquisition funding for the NSC program; this request does not include additional funding for a 12th NSC.

OPCs are to be smaller, less expensive, and in some respects less capable than NSCs; they are intended to replace the Coast Guard’s 29 aged medium-endurance cutters. Coast Guard officials describe the OPC program as the service’s top acquisition priority. OPCs have an estimated average procurement cost of about $391 million per ship. On September 15, 2016, the Coast Guard announced that it was awarding a contract with options for building up to nine ships in the class to Eastern Shipbuilding Group of Panama City, FL. The first OPC was funded in FY2018 and is to be delivered in 2021. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2019 budget requests $400 million in acquisition funding for the OPC program for the construction of the second OPC (which is scheduled for delivery in 2022) and procurement of long leadtime materials (LLTM) for the third OPC (which is scheduled for delivery in 2023).

FRCs are considerably smaller and less expensive than OPCs; they are intended to replace the Coast Guard’s 49 aging Island-class patrol boats. FRCs have an estimated average procurement cost of about $58 million per boat. A total of 50 have been funded through FY2018. The 27th was commissioned into service on April 20, 2018. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2019 budget requests $240 million in acquisition funding for the procurement of four more FRCs.

The NSC, OPC, and FRC programs pose several issues for Congress, including the following: 

  • whether to fully or partially fund the acquisition of a 12th NSC in FY2019; 
  • whether to fund the acquisition of four FRCs in FY2019, as requested, or some other number, such as six, which is the maximum number that has been acquired in some prior fiscal years; 
  • whether to use annual or multiyear contracting for procuring OPCs; 
  • the procurement rate for the OPC program; 
  • planned procurement quantities for NSCs, OPCs, and FRCs; and 
  • initial testing of the NSC.

Congress’s decisions on these programs could substantially affect Coast Guard capabilities and funding requirements, and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.

Will the OPC have Water Cannon?

A screengrab from Yonhap News video (below) showing the fire on board the Panama-registered Auto Banner at the Port of Incheon, May 21, 2018. Credit: Yonhap News

Cyclone-class patrol coastal USS Zephyr (PC 8) crew conducts ship-to-ship firefighting to extinguish a fire aboard a low-profile go-fast vessel suspected of smuggling in international waters of the Eastern Pacific Ocean April 7, 2018. Photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Mark Barney

A water cannon battle between Taiwanese and Japanese Coast Guard vessels.

Above we see some examples of water cannon in use by S. Korean, Indian, Taiwanese, and Japanese coast guard vessels and a Navy patrol craft supporting a Coast Guard mission, attempting to extinguish a fire.  Looks like water cannon might be a handy thing to have.

On this original concept model of the Offshore Patrol Cutter there are four water cannon, two on the roof of the hangar and two on top of the superstructure between the Mast and the stack.

On later illustrations, the water cannon seem to have disappeared.

OPC “Placemat”

Am I missing something?