We have a report from the Japan Times that, ”

“The United States and Japan plan to hold a meeting of coast guard commanders with Australia and the Philippines as part of their efforts to forge a unified front against China’s maritime activities, according to diplomatic sources.”

with the meeting likely to take place in the Philippines.

Australia’s coast guards are volunteer organizations, more like the CG auxiliary, so their representative is likely to be Royal Australian Navy. I would think the Philippine Navy might have a role here as well. Although the Philippine Coast Guard is being reinforced, it is still not up to the task of facing down the Chinese Coast Guard. Even their Navy would have a hard time with that. There is also a Philippino fisheries management agency which is likely to be a player.

Interestingly recently Reuters reported that the US was “open” to joint patrols with the Philippines. Apparently the US is also talking Joint Patrols with India.

What does all this mean for the Coast Guard?

It appears the most likely outcome is USCG and perhaps Japanese and/or Australian ship-riders on Philippine ships and perhaps USCG ship-riders on Japanese cutters. If something happens between Chinese and Philippine units that might prompt the US to intercede, we would certainly want to know what actually happened. We don’t want to be dragged into a war because a Philippine unit acted improperly and then blamed the Chinese. Good documentation would also be useful in influencing domestic and world opinion. Ship-riders would also mean that if the Chinese attempt to bully the Philippines or Japan by the use of deadly force, it would mean they would have to consider the prossible consequences of US and/or Australian casualties as well.

There are other, less likely possibilities, we might, as 7th Fleet has suggested, send a cutter to patrol with the Philippine Coast Guard, or with Philippine Coast Guard representatives embarked, allowing the cutter to provide transportation and support for Philippine Authorities. Also possible, but probably more provocative and therefore less likely, would be putting Coast Guard LEDET and Philippine authorities on US Navy vessels to enforce Philippine law.

I suspect these consultations are in anticipation of a favorable decision on behalf of the Philippines by the International Tribunal on Law of the Sea.  If the Tribunal decices the Chinese are imposing themselves on territory that should be under Philippine administration, what will be done about it?

These are not Coast Guard Craft, but they are interesting to boat drivers in general.

Beside, some day some Coast Guard crew may run into something similar up to no good.

Only been six weeks after the issuance of “Dec. 14, 2015 Congressional Research Service report, Coast Guard Cutter Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress” there was already a 27 January, 2016 update, but this one is very different, because it incorporates the content of the FY2016 Appropriations Act which the President is expected to sign. Hopefully this marks a turning point in Coast Guard Procurement. 

There is a nice summary of how the budget battle developed in Table 7. “Summary of Appropriations Action on FY2016” on page 28. The biggest part of the jump from request to Appropriation was $640M for a ninth Bertholf Class, but there were other increases in both the OPC and NSC programs.

• The NSC program went from a request for $91.4M to a final figure of $743.4M. A delta of $653M
• The OPC program from a request for $18.5M to $89.0M permitting the award of the OPC down select contract in FY2016.
• The FRC program began and ended as $340.0M (six more boats, a total of 38 funded through FY2016).
• The TOTAL for all three programs went from 4449.9M to $1,172.4M

It does look like we have some friends on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

There are some significant provisions in the bill, that should change the way the Coast Guard does business and reports to the Congress.

• There is a requirement for long range acquisition planning. They did not quite go to 30 years as the Navy has done, but to 20 years.(p.34 &37)
• There is a requirement to track operational ship days as opposed to Days Away From Homeport which may include maintenance as well as operations. (p. 37)
• There is a 10 year requirement to maintain a continuous ship presence in the Bering Sea and Arctic using ships at least as capable as the ones currently used. (p.30).

The Congress did seem to take the service to task for being slow in completing evaluation and implementation of the Crew Rotation Concept (CRC) and Unmanned Air Systems.

The Congressional Research Service also questions why the Coast Guard has not attempted to take advantage of the potential estimated 7% saving that typically result from Multiyear and/or Block Buy contracting. I have been wondering about this for some time myself, especially with regard to the Webber Class Fast Response Cutters which are a mature, proven program approved for full rate production. (p. 20)

Passing this along,

“The USCGC INGHAM and USCGC CAMPBELL Associations are planning a joint reunion, 27-29 September 2016, at the USCGC INGHAM Maritime Museum and National Historic Landmark in Key West, Florida,  www.uscgcingham.org, to celebrate the 80th Birthday of the original Secretary Class Cutters.  All former Secretary Class  Shipmates are invited. Initial POC for INGHAM shipmates is Matt Krainski at comet1996@aol.com and Rick Croasdale for CAMPBELL at captrow737@aol.com.  Former shipmates from BIBB, DUANE, HAMILTON, SPENCER, and TANEY may contact their Associations or Marty Moynihan at coeagle17@yahoo.com.  Additional information will be available this Spring.”

With New Years “Best of…” Lists are perhaps inevitable. This one, from NavyRecognition, while you might argue with the selection is at least interesting.

Perhaps most interesting for us are #6 BAE Systems Unveils the ORKA One Shot One Kill Round for 57mm Gun at Sea-Air-Space 20 and #3 Design of Future TKMS Built Saar 6 MEKO A100 Corvettes for Israeli Navy Unveiled.

#1 At NAVDEX 2015 Navantia unveiled its F-538 Frigate Design for the Peruvian Navy is interesting, as a cutter sized warship, but it is still only a proposal. 

Earlier I quoted the law that enacted the FY2016 budget. Now I’ll attempt to put it in context by comparing it to earlier budget allocations including the FY2014 budget, the FY2015 budget request, the FY2015 budget enacted, and the FY 2016 budget request.  If you want to look back as far as FY2013 enacted and the 2014 request you can look here. There are some area where I do not have information, so I have left them blank. Hopefully I will be able to fill them later as more info becomes available.

…………….(Note all amounts in $000, unless indicated otherwise)

Acquisitions, Construction, and Improvement (AC&I):

• FY 2014 Actual…………………$1,373,135
• FY 2015 President’s Budget……1,084,193
• FY 2015 Actual…………………..1,225,223
• FY 2016 President’s Budget……1,017,269
• FY 2016 Actual………………….$1,945,169

Operations and Maintenance (O&M):

• FY 2014 Actual………………….$6,782,607
• FY 2015 President’s Budget…….6,750,733
• FY 2015 Actual……………………6,830,318
• FY 2016 President’s Budget…….6,821,503
• FY 2016 Actual…………………..$7,061,490

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION:  

• FY 2014 Actual…………………….$13,164
• FY 2015 President’s Budget……..$13,214
• FY 2015 Actual………………………
• FY 2016 President’s Budget……..$13,269
• FY 2016 Actual…………………… $13,221

RESERVE TRAINING:

• FY 2014 Actual…………………….$120,000
• FY 2015 President’s Budget……..$109,605
• FY 2015 Actual………………………
• FY 2016 President’s Budget……..$110,614
• FY 2016 Actual…………………….$110,614

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION: 

• FY 2014 Actual…………………….$19,200
• FY 2015 President’s Budget……..$17,947
• FY 2015 Actual………………………
• FY 2016 President’s Budget……..$18,135
• FY 2016 Actual…………………….$18,019

Mandatory (non-discretionary) appropriations (primarily retired pay):

• FY 2014 Actual…………………..$1,754,148
• FY 2015 President’s Budget……..1,662,373
• FY 2015 Actual…………………….1,663,548
• FY 2016 President’s Budget……..1,823,819
• FY 2016 Actual………………………

Total budget:

• FY 2014 Actual…………………….$10,321,874
• FY 2015 President’s Budget………..9,810,468
• FY 2015 Actual……………………..10,041,720
• FY 2016 President’s Budget………..9,963,914
• FY 2016 Actual:.(I do not have full information, but it should be about $11.2B)

Taking a closer look at AC&I particularly:

FY 2016 President’s Budget requests:

• Acquisition, Construction and Improvements (AC&I) $1.01B which included:
• $533,900 for vessels
• $200,000 for aircraft,
• $101,400 for shore projects

FY2016 Actual

• Acquisition, Construction and Improvements (AC&I) $1,945,169,000
• $1,264,400 for vessels
• $295,000 for aircraft
• $181,600 for shore projects

Note the AC&I for vessels was increased $90.5M more than the $640M for the ninth NSC. Six Webber class WPCs were in the plan from the beginning so they do not account for the difference. Hopefully it restored the funding needed to keep the Offshore Patrol Cutter on track, and perhaps included a bit more for moving forward on the planned Icebreaker.

Capital Investment Plan, This is another document of interest. You can find the latest one, FY2016-2020 here. Hopefully we will see a revised one soon.

The  Cuttermen Association has announced their first recipients of the “Hopley Yeaton Cutter Excellence and Superior Cutterman Awards.”

The following is quoted from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (H.R. 2019), pp 259-261. 

COAST GUARD OPERATING EXPENSES

For necessary expenses for the operations and maintenance of the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; purchase or lease of not to exceed 25 passenger motor vehicles, which shall be for replacement only; purchase or lease of small boats for contingent and emergent requirements (at a unit cost of no more than $700,000) and repairs and service-life replacements, not to exceed a total of $31,000,000; purchase or lease of boats , necessary for overseas deployments and activities; purchase or lease of other equipment (at a unit cost of no more than $250,000); minor shore construction projects not exceeding $1,000,000 in total cost on any location; payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97– 377 (42 U.S.C. 402 note; 96 Stat. 1920); and recreation and welfare; $7,061,490,000, of which $500,002,000 shall be for defense-related activities, of which $160,002,000 is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985; of which $24,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); and of which not to exceed $23,000 shall be for official reception and representation expenses: Provided, That none of the funds made available by this Act shall be for expenses incurred for recreational vessels under section 12114 of title 46, United States Code, except to the extent fees are collected from owners of yachts and credited to this appropriation: Provided further, That to the extent fees are insufficient to pay expenses of recreational vessel documentation under such section 12114, and there is a backlog of recreational vessel applications, then personnel performing non-recreational vessel documentation functions under subchapter II of chapter 121 of title 46, United States Code, may perform documentation under section 12114: Provided further, That of the funds provided under this heading, $85,000,000 shall be withheld from obligation for Coast Guard Headquarters Directorates until a future-years capital investment plan for fiscal years 2017 through 2021, as specified under the heading ‘‘Coast Guard, Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements’’ of this Act, is submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives: Provided further, That funds made available under this heading for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism may be allocated by program, project, and activity, notwithstanding section 503 of this Act: Provided further, That without regard to the limitation as to time and condition of section 503(d) of this Act, after June 30, up to $10,000,000 may be reprogrammed to or from Military Pay and Allowances in accordance with subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 503.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

For necessary expenses to carry out the environmental compliance and restoration functions of the Coast Guard under chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $13,221,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020.

RESERVE TRAINING

For necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as authorized by law; operations and maintenance of the Coast Guard reserve program; personnel and training costs; and equipment and services; $110,614,000.

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction, renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment related thereto; and maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of facilities and equipment; as authorized by law; $1,945,169,000; of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); and of which the following amounts shall be available until September 30, 2020 (except as subsequently specified): $21,000,000 for military family housing; $1,264,400,000 to acquire, effect major repairs to, renovate, or improve vessels, small boats, and related equipment; $295,000,000 to acquire, effect major repairs to, renovate, or improve aircraft or increase aviation capability; $65,100,000 for other acquisition programs; $181,600,000 for shore facilities and aids to navigation, including facilities at Department of Defense installations used by the Coast Guard; and $118,069,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016, for personnel compensation and benefits and related costs: Provided, That of the funds provided by this Act, not less than $640,000,000 shall be immediately available and allotted to contract for the production of the ninth National Security Cutter notwithstanding the availability of funds for post-production costs: Provided further, That the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit to the Congress, at the time the President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2017 is submitted pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, a future-years capital investment plan as described in the second proviso under the heading ‘‘Coast Guard, Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements’’ in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015 (Public Law 114– 4), which shall be subject to the requirements in the third and fourth provisos under such heading.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

For necessary expenses for applied scientific research, development, test, and evaluation; and for maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of facilities and equipment; as authorized by law; $18,019,000, to remain available until September 30, 2018, of which $500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)): Provided, That there may be credited to and used for the purposes of this appropriation funds received from State and local governments, other public authorities, private sources, and foreign countries for expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and evaluation.

RETIRED PAY

For retired pay, including the payment of obligations otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this purpose, payments under the Retired Serviceman’s Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, payment for career status bonuses, concurrent receipts, and combat-related special compensation under the National Defense Authorization Act, and payments for medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, $1,604,000,000, to remain available until expended.

We have Bryant’s Maritime Consulting to thank for the link. 

Photo: Date: 31 March 1927; USCG Photo #: 16079-A Photographer: J. N. Heuisy (U.S. Coast Guard photo). USCGC Jackson soon after her commissioning.

14/15 September, 1944 were not good days for the Coast Guard. We lost two cutters and a light ship, along with 59 of their crewmen.

Two “buck and a quarter,” 125 foot cutters, USCGC Jackson (WSC-142) and the Bedloe (WSC-128) were going to the aid of a torpedoed freighter. Lightship 73 was simply in the path of a Category-4 monster.

The Coast Guard was not the only service to suffer losses due to this Hurricane. The  Destroyer USS Warrington (DD-383) was lost 13 September, with 248 of her crew, only 73 survived. She was East of West Palm Beach, FL, and NE of the Bahamas as the storm moved North.

The minesweeper YMS-409 was lost with all hands, not far from the Coast Guard ship, the night of 14/15 Sept.

The WashingtonExaminer reports,

“The 2009-page $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill before Congress this week includes a $640 million earmark for a Coast Guard ship the Coast Guard doesn’t want, but K Street does.”

They point to an earlier post that advocated a 9th NSC and this statement,

“The [program of record] provides the capabilities needed to execute our missions. While these assets have proven to be highly effective and capable, the Coast Guard has not identified a need for additional NSCs at this time,” said a Coast Guard spokesman Chief Warrant Officer Chad Saylor.

Presumably, CWO Saylor was just saying it was not in the budget or in the program of record. Saying the Coast Guard does not need or cannot use a ninth Bertholf class could not be more wrong.

The National Security Cutters have been repeatedly identified as replacements for the 378 foot WHECs. But even under the most optimistic assumption of the “Crew Rotation Concept,” eight NSCs are not enough to provide the same number of days away from homeport as twelve WHECs. Even assuming each NSC would be available 230 days a year, they could provide only 1840 days as compared to 2220 for twelve WHECs, each available 185 days per year. Even nine NSCs still leaves us 150 days short. To provide the same or more days away from homeport under the crew rotation concept, even if it worked would require ten ships and 13 crews.

The Fleet Mix study completed in 2009 and made public in 2012, indicated that the Coast Guard needs far more ships than included in the “Program of Record,” if it were to fully meet all our statutory missions.   Each of the four progressively larger force levels (each progressively larger than the program of record) was intended to address a mission short fall. In every case the desired force level for National Security Cutters was nine.