Navy Times is reporting the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has submitted her resignation. Can’t say I’m sorry to see her go.
Who will replace her? I have a couple of suggestions,
former Commandant Thad Allen we all know, and
my other candidate is Larry Korb, assistant secretary of defense (manpower, reserve affairs, installations, and logistics) from 1981 through 1985 under Reagan, a former naval aviator who retired from the Navy Reserve as a Captain, and a man with a long association with the Coast Guard including teaching at the Academy.
The website for the National Coast Guard Museum Association, the organization developing the museum planned for New London, is up an running. You can find it here:
I’ve come across an interesting innovation that the Coast Guard might want to take a look at. This could be very useful in responding to flooding emergencies that seem to be becoming more common and might be useful for SAR or AtoN support in some areas. They are apparently made in Michigan. They come in two sizes, 30 ft. (9.15 meter) and 21.9 foot (6.7 meter) They are a good deal faster than the WWII vintage DUKW. There is also a personal watercraft sized version.
This is an extract of what the current strategy says about homeland defense (from CS21 p. 15):
“Homeland defense is the most obvious example of the requirement for greater integration. It is not sufficient to speak of homeland defense in terms of splitting the responsibilities and authorities between the Navy and the Coast Guard along some undefined geographic boundary. Rather, the Sea Services must—and will—work as one wherever they operate in order to defend the United States. Consistent with the National Fleet Policy, Coast Guard forces must be able to operate as part of a joint task force thousands of miles from our shores, and naval forces must be able to respond to operational tasking close to home when necessary to secure our Nation and support civil authorities. Integration and interoperability are key to success in these activities, particularly where diverse forces of varying capability and mission must work together seamlessly in support of defense, security, and humanitarian operations.”
Unfortunately, if everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.
I think the Coast Guard could benefit from more specificity in the nation’s maritime strategy beginning with a simple declarative statement that while the Navy is primarily responsible for protecting the nation from overt maritime threats, the Coast Guard is primarily responsible for interdiction of covert surface maritime threats in waters surrounding US territory, including territorial sea, contiguous zone, and the exclusive economic zone.
Some might consider this a radical change, but in fact it is just acknowledging the current reality. The Naval Sea Frontiers are no more. The flotillas of minor combatants that once teamed around every port no longer exist. The US Navy no longer makes regular patrols of US waters. Generally, the only times Navy units are in US waters are for training and transit. Otherwise they are either forward deployed or in a very small number of US ports, usually in a condition that would require substantial notice to get them underway.
I believe a quote from Robert Rubel in the comments section of the post reflects the Navy’s position,
“After 2001 the US found itself confronted with a trans-national terrorist network whose tentacles reached across the AoR boundaries. The nightmare scenario was terrorists sneaking WMD into the US. The Navy came to realize it could not by itself assure the country that it could interdict such smuggling; the seas were simply to large. The associated nightmare scenario for the Navy was that it would be chained to the North American littoral to conduct patrols.”
The US Navy does not, and does not want, to patrol the US coast. There is nothing wrong with the concept of meeting threats as far from the US as possible, and nothing in the statement would preclude cooperation between the Coast Guard and the Navy or other agencies, but acknowledgement of the Coast Guard’s role would clarify equipment requirements and eliminate the still natural assumption on the part of many of those individuals that effect the Coast Guard’s budget (including the leadership of Dept. of Homeland Security) that, “The Navy will take care of that.”
The US Naval Institute Proceedings July 2013 edition has an article concerning US military policy in the Arctic, “When the Ice Melts,” written by three officers from the Navy, Air Force, and Army, which pays a lot of attention to the Coast Guard. Not much really new here and it appears a few months out of date, but still a good overview of the questions involved, if perhaps a bit too alarmist about the Chinese. It does advocate more Navy participation in the Arctic Shield Exercises.
Unfortunately the full article is only accessible to US Naval Institute members, but if you are a regular reader here, there is a good chance you should also be a USNI member.
A CV-22 Osprey aircraft from the 8th Special Operations Squadron flies over the Emerald Coast outside Hurlburt Field, Fla., on Jan. 31, 2009. While over the water, the crew practiced using a hoist, which is used to rescue stranded personnel. DOD photo by Senior Airman Julianne Showalter, U.S. Air Force. (Released)
DefenseNews reports members of Congress are questioning an Air Force proposal to use the V-22 Osprey tiltrotar in addition to the HH-60 for Combat Search and Rescue.
Opponents site the very strong downwash from the aircraft and higher cost.
Proponents site the V-22s higher speed and range.
It appears politics may also be at work here, surprise, surprise.
Thinkdefense recently reported on the test of a new application of the proven Brimstone missile. (They also have some additional video, and excellent commentary.) Three missiles were launched almost simultaneously against five boats (four stopped and one underway at about 20 knots) simulating a swarm attack. The three missiles each hit a separate target.
Targeting:
The thing that makes this missile so interesting is the range of options it provides the user to ensure that the right target is hit and there is little or no chance of collateral damage. It is equipped with an all weather millimetric radar that will show the shape of the target, and in the latest version semi-laser homing. It can be “fire and forget,” but it can also allow a “man-in-the-loop.” It can be given a laser designation and then continue to independently track the target. It has a terrain avoidance feature allowing it to hit targets on the far side of islands. A kill box can be designated so that it will ignore targets outside the box and self-destruct if it passes through the box without finding a target. Multiple rounds can be fired in a salvo, against one or more targets.
Will the US consider it?:
Clearly this weapon is being marketed to the US, including apparently for use on the Littoral Combat Ship as a competitor to an enhanced Griffin. US Special Forces have already shown an interest in the missile.
“BRIMSTONE is also being proposed as a surface-to-surface missile for deployment within the SEA SPEAR self-defence system against FIACs (fast inshore attack craft–Chuck) and other small surface threats. With a range of deck-mounted launcher options, from single to six-pack configurations, the system’s very small footprint gives it a high level of deck positioning flexibility making it suitable for small vessels such as FACs as well as much larger vessels such as auxiliary ships.”
Footprint:
It is relatively small, about 107 pounds, less than six feet long, and approximately seven inches in diameter. They claim it is suitable for vessels as small as 15 meters (50 feet).
Alternatives
The nearest similar missile in US service right now is the Hellfire. Brimstone developed out of a program to improve Hellfire, so not surprisingly, Hellfire is very similar in size but has a shorter range. Hellfire has been used on the Combat Boat 90 (a 52 foot boat). It does not have the sophisticated dual mode guidance and collateral damage avoidance features of the Brimstone. Several types have been built. Most are semi-active laser homing, but there is a millimetric radar homing version also, but it does not include the man-in-the-loop feature of the Brimstone. The model that appears most useful in a naval environment is the “N” model. The Thermobaric warhead does sound interesting.
AGM-114N Hellfire II
Target: Enclosures, ships, urban targets, air defense units
New weapons like this are beginning to give even very small craft the punch that once came only with something like a 5″ gun, but perhaps more importantly it allows a very precise application of force. That should be very important to the Coast Guard in that their units are most likely to operating in and around the US including densely populated areas.
This may not be a ship killing, or even ship stopping weapon (although it might help), but it might be useful against a different type of difficult target. We might someday need to stop a terrorist or an enemy in wartime employing a fast highly maneuverable craft operating inshore or among a number other vessels where gunfire is likely to cause civilian casualties. This system would be much safer, and more likely to succeed, than using guns, in that circumstance.
Too good to be true?
With the possibility of being surrounded, pushing one button, and wiping out all your enemies, I was reminded of this sequence from the movie “The Last Starfighter.”
Apparently, the former USCGC Ewing is up for sale, only $69,000. Considering how the Coast Guard’s budget has been cut, and shipbuilding has been slowed, perhaps the Coast Guard should get her back. It is only 86 years old.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 