The Coast Guard Compass has begun the first of a series on the Coast Guard in World War I.
The war cemented the service’s role as a military agency. Nearly 9,000 Coast Guard men and women would participate in the war. This number included over 200 Coast Guard officers, many of whom served as warship commanders, troop ship captains, training camp commandants and naval air station commanders. In all, Coast Guard heroes received two Distinguished Service Medals, eight Gold Lifesaving Medals, almost a dozen foreign honors and nearly 50 Navy Cross Medals, dozens more than were awarded to Coast Guardsmen in World War II.
Of the two, I think the one you can view above is by far the more interesting, and his comments were not limited to the Offshore Patrol Cutter, discussing the inland tender fleet and the CG budget in general as well. There were a couple of notable details in the interview.
Admiral Papp stated explicitly that the expected crew size for the OPC would be 126 (I suspect this might actually refer to the planned accommodations rather than the crew). That is considerably more than the crew of the WMECs they replace. These ships are actually a third again larger than the 378s and much more capable than the ships they replace, so this should not be a great surprise. I do think this is more than the nominal crew of the National Security Cutter, although probably less than they actually sail with.
He also stated that the electric motors in the hybrid propulsion system would be good for at least nine and perhaps as much as 13 knots. All along I had assumed the hybrid system had been adopted as a means of meeting the range requirement, but since it is apparent they do not expect to be able to reach 14 knots using the electric motors, then the claimed range of 10,200 miles at 14 knots must be achievable using the Main Propulsion diesels. This suggest the range at lower speeds using only the ship’s service generators and electric motors may actually be considerably more.
Admiral Papp also suggested that there may be a possibility of exporting Eastern built ships because of its projected cost, well under $350M per ship.
The Acquisitions Directorate (CG-9) is reporting that they have issued draft specifications for the Polar Icebreaker. The following is a verbatim copy of the press release.
The Coast Guard released its draft heavy polar icebreaker system specifications in a request for information (RFI) today. The request seeks questions, comments and feedback related to heavy polar icebreaker technology risks, sustainability, producibility and affordability. The RFI can be found here.
This RFI is part of ongoing market research conducted with the Navy and includes the draft specifications for icebreaker hull structure, propulsion and electrical plants, command and surveillance systems, weaponry, outfitting and auxiliary systems. Industry sources are invited to submit responses by June 16, 2017, at 11 a.m. Eastern time.
Following market research, the Coast Guard plans to release a request for proposal for detail design and construction of a heavy polar icebreaker in fiscal year 2018. The service plans to begin production activities in 2020.
“Due to size limitations, the draft HPIB System Specification will be posted to FedBizOpps (FBO) via multiple document packages which will be deemed “limited access” and “export controlled.” All vendors must be granted “explicit access” by USCG in the FBO system in order to gain access to these limited access or export controlled packages.”
Cdr Salamander has an interesting perspective on how the service leadership interacts with successive administrations and the dangers of being to closely associated with the agenda of a particular administration.
Actually I think the current leadership has been very consistant in identifying real priorities, but we haven’t always been so clear and consistant. Its worth considering.
FLIR Maritime announced recently that it has been awarded a $50 million indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract to provide marine electronics systems under the U.S. Coast Guard’s Scalable Integrated Navigation Systems 2 (SINS-2) program over a five-year period providing the purchaser a right to extend delivery for an additional five years.
FLIR will provide electronics systems that will be standard fit on over 2,000 U.S. Coast Guard vessels, ranging from small-class boats through large cutter-class vessels. The systems include Raymarine multi-function navigation displays, radars, sonars, remote instrument displays, and autopilots.
Navy Recognition reports that BAE now offers a 60 kW Laser addition to the Mk38 mod2 gun mount currently on the Webber Class Fast Response Cutters and planned for the Offshore Patrol Cutter.
“The addition of a 60kW TLS would provide true selectable and scalable effects ranging from non-lethal to lethal. This would allow for new response options in both conventional and irregular conflicts.”
Note the laser on the USS Ponce is only 30 kW.
Late addition:
How it might be useful: It could be used in a less than lethal mode. It could probably be used for disabling fire against outboard motors with greater precision than a gun. It could be used to destroy UAS (drones) inside ports without worrying about where misses might land.
Among my readers, I assume there are some Lighthouse enthusiasts.
Our friend in Chile, Andres Tavolari, guest author of a still popular post, “Three Nations Share German OPV Design” sent me a couple of links regarding Chilean lighthouses.
Rescue boat sits moored at the Kitsilano Coast Guard station before the base’s closure in 2013.
Our Canadian counterparts are looking forward to an 11% expansion over the next two years. This is a part of the Canadian government’s $1.5B (Canadian) Ocean Protection Plan that will include new vessels and new lifeboat stations.
The Ocean Protection Plan appears to be a response to late or less than satisfactory response to pollution incidents.
I’m told among the new Canadian Coast Guard assets will be 45 foot USCG standard Response Boat, Mediums.
Map of the Arctic region showing shipping routes Northeast Passage, Northern Sea Route, and Northwest Passage, and bathymetry, Arctic Council, by Susie Harder
gCaptain reports that despite record traffic, it appears there is little international interest in using the Northern Sea Route through the Russian Arctic to move cargo between the Atlantic and Pacific. Virtually all the traffic serves Russian local interests.
“Transit cargo contributed less than 3 percent to last year’s volumes through the Northern Sea Route,”
Low fuel prices have removed much of the incentive to use this shorter, but potentially more difficult route. Logically the same considerations apply to the North West Passage route as well. Given our unreadiness to deal with heavier traffic and the portential for an environmental disaster in the Arctic, this is probably good news for the US and Canadian coast guards. How long will these conditions continue? At the very least, we seem to have some time to get our act together.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 