National Fleet Plan

Posted on by
14

A friend of the blog, Leesea, recently pointed me to the recent update of the “National Fleet Plan,” which, despite its name, does not really talk about the entire US Fleet. It is really about the Coast Guard, and how it and the Navy will cooperate to “identify additional opportunities for increased commonality and interoperability.”

You can find it in the form of a pdf here.

I have reproduced the table of contents below. Mostly, it is what you would expect and/or hope would be included. There are potential areas of cooperation, current situation, where they hope to progress, and identification of responsible offices.

It really did not get interesting to me until it started talking about the Offshore Patrol Cutter (page 22-24 particularly).

There was one particular section that I thought might be of interest, the “Strategic Laydown” (page 54), which concerns sharing facilities, including ship homeports, with the Navy.

Plan of Action and Milestones
– Fiscal Year 2015: Process Organizational Change Request (OCR) for Coast Guard System Acquisition Integration Laboratory (CGSAIL) relocation to Navy Combat Systems Engineering Development Site (CSEDS).

– Fiscal Year 2015: Submit revised Strategic Laydown (SLD) request and OCR to homeport 3 X FRCs at Naval Base Guam to include Lessons Learned from maturing CG-7/OPNAV N51 MOA.

– Fiscal Year 2015: Process Organization Change Request to homeport 3 X Medium Endurance Cutters at Naval Station Pensacola.

– Continue to develop solutions to permanently station aviation assets at Naval Base Ventura County.

– Support feasibility studies to identify potential homeport locations for West Coast Offshore Patrol Cutters

I am planning on two follow-up posts, one about what they had to say about the OPC and one about the implications of homeporting Coast Guard ships at Navy Bases.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.

1.  Preamble …………………………………………………. 9
2.  Purpose ………………………………………………….. 9
3.  National Fleet Plan Overview ……………………………….. 9
4.  Plan Progression and Oversight……………………………………………………… 10
5.  National Fleet Plan…………………………………………..………………………… 10
5.1.  Current and Evolving Operations……………………………10
5.2.  Integrated Logistics………………………………………….……………..……….. 12
5.3.  Training……………………………………………………………..………………… 15
5.4.  Maritime Security Cooperation…………………….……………………..………… 21
5.5.  Command, Control, Communications (C3) Systems……………….….………… 22
5.6.  Sensors………………………………………………………………………………… 25
5.7.  Weapon Systems…………………………………………………….……….……… 26
5.8.  Engineering Systems……………………………………………………….………… 28
5.9.  Platforms………………………………………………………………….…………… 29
5.10. Intelligence and Information Integration …………………. 34
6.  Programmatic Collaboration…………………………………………………………… 36
7.  Integrated Plan of Action and Milestones…………………………………..…….….. 36
8.  Navy-Coast Guard Memoranda of Understanding/Memoranda of Agreement…… 44
9.  Legal Authorities ……………………………………………….………………… 48
Chartered Commonality Working Groups:  Mission/Plan of Action and Milestones
Appendix A.  Permanent Joint Working Group…………………………………………… 50
Appendix B.  Small Boat Commonality Integrated Process Team …….. 51
Appendix C.  Naval Logistics Integration………………………………………………..… 52
Appendix D.  SSBN Transit Protection Systems…………………………………………. 53
Appendix E.  Strategic Laydown Working Group………………………………………… 54
Appendix F.  Arctic Working Group ……………………………….55
Appendix G.  Maritime Security Cooperation Council ………………… 56
Glossary……………………………………………………………………………………… 57

“Progress Slowed by Age”–Seapower Magazine

Posted on by
Reply

The Navy League’s “Seapower” magazine has an article about how aging assets are impacting the Coast Guard’s mission effectiveness. You can read it on line here. (You will probably have to expand it to make it readable.)

Frankly, I have been disappointed that they had not been talking about this much earlier. There has been entirely too much happy talk about how great the new assets are without much discussion of the general decrepitude of most of the fleet. Of course this has probably been our own fault. Even in this article, there seems to be little sense of urgency.  The article barely mentions the fact that the planned slow motion replacement of Medium Endurance Cutters by the Offshore Patrol Cutter will prolong the pain. After all, we don’t expect the last OPC until 2034, a fact not mentioned in the article. They refer to a “two-plus decade program” to build 91 new surface ship, but in fact the first National Security Cutter was funded in FY2001, and the roots of the program go back further still, so this is at least a three and a half decade program, that was begun at least ten years after it should have.

Stern Launch System Innovation

Posted on by
8

In order to diversify their product portfolio, and with this keep ahead of the competition, the company of Global Davit decided to collaborate with the Dutch company TBV Marine Systems, part of High-tech Solutions & Design B.V. This company is in the process of developing, manufacturing and implementing of stern Launch and Recovery Systems (L.A.R.S.) which can launch and recover the bigger Fast Rescue Crafts (FRCs). This system can be used in higher Sea States, so in waves up to 2.25 meters.

Photo: “The stern Launch and Recovery Systems (L.A.R.S.) can launch and recover the bigger Fast Rescue Crafts (FRCs). This system can be used in higher Sea States, so in waves up to 2.25 meters.”

Navy Recognition reports a innovation in stern launch system that has resulted from the cooperative effort of German company Global Davit GmbH and Dutch company TBV Marine Systems.

Indonesia Attempts to use Big Data to Manage Fisheries

Posted on by
1

The Jakarta Post reports that the Indonesian government will attempt to use the Automatic Identification System (AIS) to manage their fisheries.

They plan to exploit an open source system called “Global Fishing Watch,” a partnership between SkyTruth, Oceana and Google. There are certainly limitations on the data available from this system. AIS can be turned off or spoofed, but the Global Fishing Watch website has some answers for these limitation, and careful tracking can to some extent mitigate the problems.

More here (pdf).

Trimaran Patrol Boat

Posted on by
8

Our friend at NavyRecognition offers this video of the CMN Ocean Eagle 43 prototype built for the Navy of Mozambique, in sea trials in what are reported to be State 5 seas.

There is no displacement listed, but, except in beam, this vessel is notably smaller than the Webber class WPCs (143 ft vs 154 for the Webber class). It has a smaller crew (7) and accommodations (15), but otherwise appears to have similar capabilities with a speed of 30 knots, a range of 3000 miles at 20 knots, and a 7 meter RHIB in a ramp at the stern.

They also advertise a proposed mine hunter version that is more limited in speed and dispenses with the small UAS flight deck in favor of unmanned underwater vehicles for mine hunting and destruction. Assuming the same hull is used, the dimensions for both are 43.6 meter in length, 15.7 meter beam, and two meter draft.

When it comes time to replace the 87 footers, perhaps we should consider something similar, though dealing with the much greater beam might be a bit of a challenge in some places.

Australia to Build a Polar Icebreaker

Posted on by
13

An artist's impression of Australia's new icebreaker.

Thanks to Tups for bringing this to my attention. He mentioned it in comments on an earlier post, but I felt it warranted a separate post.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports, the Australian Government is close to a “decision to select a British-based operator and Dutch shipyard for Australia’s $1 billion Antarctic icebreaker project.” gCaptain provides additional details and more images.

The new 156-metre long, 23,800-tonne vessel will have increased cargo and marine science capability but is expected to carry around the same number of passengers.

Its crucial ice-breaking capacity will give it the power to steam through 1.65-metre ice, compared to Aurora‘s 1.23 metres.

The $1B may sound familiar, about what the USCG expects to spend on a new Polar Icebreaker, but in fact that includes its full lifecycle cost and these are Australian $$, so in fact it is more like $710M. Presumably there will be savings because the ship will be built in Romania.

Perhaps inevitably the procurement process has been criticized. That there is only one bidder and the ship will not be built in Australia, both cause concern.

The ship is expected to operate out of Hobart, Tasmania.

The ship appears narrower than conventional icebreakers. It appears to be a hybrid, combining cargo, research, and icebreaking functions in a single relatively large ship.

Australia’s claims on Antarctica (held in abeyance now because of treaty) are extensive. Looking at the diagram below, they appear to include about half of the larger Eastern half of Antarctica. It may be that their stations are more accessible than those of the US. Their stations lie close to the Antarctic Circle while McMurdo is about 600 miles closer to the pole. In the Northern hemisphere the North coast of Iceland and the Bering Strait are on about the same latitude as their Antarctic stations.

512px-Antarctica_CIA_svg

Coast Guard to Get New Gun Mount, Mk38 Mod3

Posted on by
18

For photos, see this DefenseMediaNetwork post.

It looks like the Coast Guard will be getting a new gun mount soon. Defense.gov reports a new $30,556,246 contract for Mk38 Mod3 gun mounts that includes “fiscal 2015 weapons procurement (Coast Guard) funding in the amount of $5,341,232 …(and)… fiscal 2014 weapons procurement (Coast Guard) funding in the amount of $152,781“.

The announcement does not make clear how many systems this will buy. The contract also includes systems for the Navy and at least one system for the Philippines. Assuming the Philippines is buying only one system, it appears the contract will buy 16-17 systems, one for the Philippines, one for the National Guard/Reserve, three for the Coast Guard, and eleven or twelve for the Navy, but in the more likely case, the Philippines is actually buying two systems, then the numbers may actually be double this, which would make sense if the Coast Guard buy was for six Webber class. An FY2012 Contract for 21 Mk38 Mod2s for $24.2M would seem to indicate they cost about $1.1M each. I would like to think that, since the program has matured, this larger buy might actually cost less per unit, so that this is actually a buy of 30 or more systems (probably 32-34), with six going to the Coast Guard, two to the Philippines, two to the National Guard and Reserve, and the rest to the Navy.

DefenseMediaNetwork reports the Mk38 Mod3 offers a number of improvements over the Mod2 currently being fitted to the Webber class, including more ready ammunition on the mount (500 rounds vice 165), a coaxial .50 cal. gun (there was already a plan (pdf) to add a coaxial 7.62mm to the Mod2 version), higher elevation (75 degrees vice 40), better weather protection and serviceability, and the ability to simultaneously track up to three targets. There are also improvements to the search function of the ElectroOptic sensor that should make the system more useful in peacetime roles. They also report that BAE and Israeli manufacturer, Rafael, are considering adding the “Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System” APKWSII guided 70mm rocket system to the mount. In fact Israeli versions of this system already support surface to surface and surface to air missiles.

Most photos of the Mk38 Mod3, like the one above feature a 30mm gun which is an option, but it appears, from the language in the announcement, that these mounts will use the 25mm. I believe there is even a 40mm option. The Navy may be recycling existing 25mm guns, moving them to the new mount. Personally I would have preferred the larger caliber weapon, for its ability to take on larger surface targets. The 30mm would have almost as many rounds on the mount (420 vs 500), would be more accurate, have a greater effective range (3000 vs 2500 meters), and provide greater penetration.