Do you know how fast your were going? I’m Going to Let You Off with a Warning this time, but Slow it Down!

I had known there have been limited areas where vessels’ speed has been restricted and had heard about speed limits to protect right whales, but this was the first time I have heard that anyone was considering restrictions on merchant shipping that might be applied globally.

The Clean Shipping Coalition (CSC) has proposed speed limits in the shipping sector as ‘the key to the fast and efficient reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships’ (MEPC 61/5/10). It has proposed to the International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (IMO MEPC) to discuss mandatory speed controls.

———

As a rule of thumb, engine power output is a third power function of speed. Hence, when a ship reduces its speed by 10%, its engine power is reduced by 27%. Because it takes longer to sail a given distance at a lower speed, the energy required for a voyage is reduced by 19% (a quadratic function).

And the assumption is that emissions are in proportion to fuel usage. The study considered global regulation, regulation of shipping in the Arctic, and regulation of those ships that may trade with the EU. The particular consideration for the Arctic is that expanded ship operation in the Arctic will result in the deposit of black carbon that will accelerate global warming and threaten the eco-system.

The full report is available here: Slow Steaming CE Delft final.pdf

In considering this sort of regulation, undoubtedly the CG would be involve. And if it were enacted the CG would most likely be the agency to enforce it for the US.

A number of questions come to mind.

Since they advocate regulation based on speed over ground (because it is easier to enforce) instead of speed through the water, you could get in trouble taking advantage of favorable currents, might not ships be certified as being in compliance with the maximum speed limits and then be allowed to use both use full power and favorable currents without penalty?

Aren’t there other approaches that could reward innovation and investment in minimizing pollution without limiting speed? Would you get to go faster if you used atomic power or wind to augment or replace the fossil fuel power? Or if you used cleaner fuel like LNG?

Is it likely? Soon? National Law or International Treaty? (See pdf beginning page 72) It would depend on how extensive and comprehensive it would be. Local systems, or restrictions specific to those vessels that trade with a particular market could happen relatively quickly. Comprehensive Treaties might take decades, before implementation.

The study also includes an interesting chart (p. 105) listing the average transit speeds of various types and sizes of merchant ships observed in 2007 (before the onset of elevated fuel prices which have resulted in a general slowing of transit speeds as a way to reduce cost.)

Unmanned Surface Vessels

The Center for International Maritime Security (cimsec.org) has a story on development of an Unmanned Surface Vessel. It is based on an 11 meter RHIB. (Actually in this case it looks like the Israeli firm engineered the system and the USN, BAE, and Lockeed engineered the labels, signs, and advertising.)

Still a similar system might be useful for the Coast Guard. It could provide another radar and electro-optical unit remote from the (or shore station) that launched it. It can be kept on scene longer than a manned boat, because operators can be cycled through on watches periodically, and get rest, sleep, and hot meals, rather than either being exposed in a small boat for long periods or having to return to the cutter for crew change.

This provides an additional search unit increasing the area searched by a cutter in the same way a helicopter does. It is not as fast, but more persistent and cheaper to operate.

Spencer in NY harbor

You just have to love this photo:

Photo: “Positioning the Spencer in New York Harbor gives me on-scene command and control, supplements units impacted by the storm, and offers the very best response to the people of New York and New Jersey." - Rear Adm. Dan Abel.  Coast Guard Cutter Spencer, homeported in Boston, deployed to New York Harbor to assist in the search and rescue response and is acting as a communications hub for post Hurricane Sandy response efforts.

“Positioning the Spencer in New York Harbor gives me on-scene command and control, supplements units impacted by the storm, and offers the very best response to the people of New York and New Jersey.” – Rear Adm. Dan Abel. Coast Guard Cutter Spencer, homeported in Boston, deployed to New York Harbor to assist in the search and rescue response and is acting as a communications hub for post Hurricane Sandy response efforts.

From the Coast Guard’s Facebook page. The photo looks even better there and at this point 86 comments with more coming in all the time.

Rewrite of Seapower 21 Coming–Opportunity for More Clarity?

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?

Air Force Helo Buy with Possible CG Impact

Defense News reports, the Air Force is again trying to buy a new Combat SAR helicopter to replace their HH-60s. This will not be an easy program. It ran into legal problems during an earlier attempt, but this is one the CG may want to watch. The program is expected to span 14 years, and the CG MH-60s are now expected to require replacement beginning in 2022. If the program is successful, the CG may be able to ride the coattails of a mature program.