An interesting note here on the Canadian participation in the War on Drugs in the Caribbean and an reported breech of international law.
Be sure to read the comment by Geoff Hamilton about why the Canadian charts were “in error.”
Frequent contributor Bill Wells has some thoughts on the recent exchange between U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller and Carnival Cruise Lines, in which the senator suggested that Carnival should pay the cost of assistance provided by the Navy and Coast Guard to Carnival’s “Triumph” and “Splendor” cruise ships. Bill looks back on the history of asking for renumeration, and suggest there is precedence for this. “Adapted to Their Condition and Necessities,” Paying for Rescues
There is also another post, representing alternate view, by a former Coastie, Mario Vittone, “The Cost of Rescue: Why Carnival Shouldn’t Pay and the U.S. Shouldn’t Accept”
gCaptain is reporting that Carnival Corp. is bowing to pressure from U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, said it will reimburse the U.S. for costs related to the breakdowns at sea of its Triumph and Splendor cruise ships. There is some additional background here.
Thoughts?
Thoughts of my own:
Naval War College Professor James Holmes recently wrote suggesting that a rearmed Coast Guard and the Air Force should be entrusted with the security of the Arctic while the Navy busies itself in the Western Pacific and the waters around SW Asia. We discussed the proposal earlier here: “America Needs a Coast Guard That Can Fight”
He subsequently discussed the topic as a guest on National Public Radio and on a blog radio show.
Today, he adds another chapter to the story, “Five Obstacles to U. S. Arctic Strategy,” that outlines why this will be a hard sell. Earlier he also wrote an article about Coast Guard Wartime missions, “U. S. Coast Guard Meets Corbett”
The UK is reportedly contracting out for SAR helo services previously provided by the RAF and Royal Navy.
Note, they are still flying the H-3, replaced in USCG service by the H-60 beginning in 1990.
Apparently the Canadians have a different view of the probability of a maritime security threat than our own DHS. A post on cimsec.org talks about it, and the possibility of more international coordination.
As noted by Brian McGrath, over at Informationdissemination, the CNO has issued a “Position Report.” (pdf) It’s only three pages and updates his “Navigation Plan.”
This quote caught my eye, “With the other sea services we will revise our maritime strategy, “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower”, to address the challenges and threats facing us in the near future.”
While there may be commitments in a war plan. Most Coasties don’t seem to have an idea what their war time roles would be. Perhaps this is an opportunity to address the apparent ambiguity. As discussed recently, a more explicit explanation of wartime roles for the Coast Guard could go a long way toward informing choices in the procurement of platforms and equipment, particularly the Offshore Patrol Cutter.
A second line, while addressed specifically at the Navy’s close formal relationship with the Marine Corps, suggest there will be an effort to minimize duplication of effort, “We will develop concepts to guide future amphibious operations, building on the ongoing “Single Naval Battle” effort with the Marine Corps.”
Where might we eliminated duplication of tasks and platforms between the Navy and Coast Guard?
As a side note one of the items addressed as a “fundamental responsibility” under the principle “Warfighting First.”
We deployed (and will keep) in the Arabian Gulf new mine hunting and neutralizing equipment, improved torpedoes; advance electromagnetic sensors, “up-gunned” patrol craft (emphasis applied–Chuck), and USS PONCE as an afloat forward staging base.
The reference to patrol craft may be exclusively to the Navy’s Cyclone Class, but some of the patrol craft in the vicinity are USCG. I haven’t seen anything indicating that their armament has been changed. Also have not seen any indication the Coasties are coming home. Could this become a long term standing commitment? Will the 110s be replaced by Webber class Fast Response Cutters?
Just a short note to highlight the existence of a couple of unusual units that may not be familiar. They have an important, if largely unrecognized mission. These are the Coast Guard’s Maritime Force Protection Units Bangor, WA and Kings Bay, GA.
The units are perhaps unique in that they have only a single mission, and they are funded by the Navy. They protect Fleet Ballistic Missile submarines while they transit on the surface, to and from their homeports. The possibility of a USS Cole style attack motivated their creation. Each unit consist of approximately 200 Coasties and is commanded by an O-5. Having CG crews and carrying CG colors and markings allows them to enforce a security zone around the subs. Both units stood up in July 2007.
They have some unique equipment too, including four 87 footers that were purchased with Navy funds. They are recognizable because of the stabilized remotely controlled machine guns mounted high on the bow.
|
Photo Credit: KEYPORT, Wash. (Aug. 18, 2009) U. S. Coast Guardsmen man the rails as the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Sea Fox (WPB 87374) is brought to life at Naval Base Kitsap. (U.S. Navy photo Ray Narimatsu/Released)
|
|
The names chosen for these Navy purchased vessels all reprise submarines that fought in WWII. A contemporary report on the arrival of Sea Devil indicates these 87 footers are manned differently as well,
“To carry out its new mission, the Sea Devil carries more crew than most 87-footers, who require more training than most, and it packs more firepower.
“Instead of 11 “racks,” or beds, and a crew of 10, the Sea Devil will carry 12 racks and a crew of 15 because of the extra hours and training anticipated for the unique mission.
“Along with two .50-caliber automatic weapons mounted on each side of the vessel, a third is mounted near the bridge.”
They have a lot of other boats as well, including some non-standard types, like the one in which the Chairman of the Joint Chief took a ride.
Photo Credit: Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pilots a 64-foot Special Purpose Craft in Puget Sound, Oct. 04, 2012, as part of a familiarization tour of Coast Guard units in the Pacific Northwest. The special purpose craft is based at the Marine Force Protection Unit in Silverdale, Wash. U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Nathan W. Bradshaw.
Thanks to Tim Colton and Lee Walher for help preparing this.
September 1918 was a bad month for the Coast Guard, September 17 to 26, a particularly bad week. In that week, the service lost 122 men in two incidents. Eleven were lost out of the crew of the Cutter Seneca in an attempt to save the steam ship Wellington, and 111 Coast Guardsmen, along with 20 others, were lost when the Tampa was torpedoed and sank with all hands.
Photo: Cutter Seneca (1908)
Here is a story about the memorial to these men at the National Cemetery in Arlington, VA, and efforts by the DC Chapter of the Chief Petty Officers’ Association to honor them.
Photo: Crew members of the cutter Tampa
Previous posts about the loss of the Tampa before, here and here.
There has been some interesting news on unmanned air systems (UAS).
A “sense and avoid” radar system has been developed for the the Navy’s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) land based system. Replacing “See and Avoid” with no eyes on board has been a problem in integrating UAS with the domestic air traffic control system. This system does not give all around detection, but then eyes don’t see under the plane or what is coming up behind either.
Lighter than air, or in this case slightly heavier than air always seems almost ready. The Army and Northrop Grumman’s optionally manned long endurance, multi-intelligence vehicle (LEMV). has had its first flight.
“HAV business development director Hardy Giesler told AIN today that, configured as a freighter, the airship could carry a payload of 20 tonnes, but for the ISR mission it is designed to carry a 2,500-pound payload at 20,000 feet for 21 days. The Army says the airship will perform the ISR mission with fuel consumption 10 times less than that of mission-comparable platforms, and that it will provide a 2,000-mile radius of action.”
Some of the Navy units that the Coast Guard most commonly works with are being reorganized.
The Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security (PWCS) mission the Coast Guard does in the US, when required outside the US, is a Navy responsibility, although they frequently seek Coast Guard assistance.
The Navy has decided to reorganize the way they do this mission, by combining at least to some extent, the organizations that do river and coastal missions.
They are also getting some new platforms to allow them to operate further from shore, including the new 85 foot patrol boat we talked about earlier.
There isn’t an exact correspondence between the way the Coast Guard defines the PWCS mission and the mission set for this new organization, but there are a lot of similarities and we can expect that there will be opportunities to train and exercise together.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 