India Builds an OPV (OPC)

Posted on April 17, 2013 by Chuck Hill

India recently commissioned INS Saryu, the first of a new class of Offshore Patrol Vessels (five photos), that are in many respects similar to the planned Offshore Patrol Cutters. I don’t think anyone is considering these as contenders for the OPC contract, but with similar mission profiles, they do show what the OPC might look like. From the Wikipedia Description:

Displacement:	2300tons
Length:	105 metres (344 ft)
Beam:	12.9 metres (42 ft)
Draught:	3.6 metres (12 ft)
Propulsion:	2 x 7790 kW engines
Speed:	25 knots (46 km/h)
Range:	6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km) at 16 knots (30 km/h)
Complement:	8 Officers and 102 Sailors
Armament:	1 x 76 mm Oto melara gun with FCS 2 x 30 mm CIWS
Aircraft carried:	1x medium helicopter

The 2,300 ton displacement is probably the light displacement. Full load is probably more. The beam is essentially the same as the 378s, so the helicopter facilities look reasonable, although I hate to see them all the way aft, where they are most effected my pitching.

I’m hoping for a more sophisticated hybrid or integrated diesel electric powerplant on the OPC, but the two diesels on Saryu providing almost 21,000 SHP are certainly adequate, meeting the OPC’s objective speed of 25 knots.

Crew size is very similar, with a total of 110 compared with the OPCs’ projected Manpower Estimate of 104 total (15 officers, 9 E-7 and above, and 80 E-6 and below) plus up to 12 attached personnel. (Another source indicates Saryu will have a crew of 16 officers and 102 enlisted.)

Range is a little less at 6,000 nmi compared with 7,500 minimum for the OPC, but it is measured at a higher speed–16 vice 14 for the OPC. It is likely the Saryu would also have a longer range at lower speeds.

The armament is also similar, only a bit heavy on the Indian vessel compared to the 57mm Mk 110, single 25mm Mk38mod2 and two remotely controlled .50 cal projected for the OPC.

A little surprising, that these ships are being built for the Indian Navy, instead of the Coast Guard, which in India is part of the Navy, but there is also, reportedly, an outstanding contract for six similar ships for the Indian Coast Guard.

Charging Carnival for Services

Posted on April 16, 2013 by Chuck Hill

Frequent contributor Bill Wells has some thoughts on the recent exchange between U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller and Carnival Cruise Lines, in which the senator suggested that Carnival should pay the cost of assistance provided by the Navy and Coast Guard to Carnival’s “Triumph” and “Splendor” cruise ships. Bill looks back on the history of asking for renumeration, and suggest there is precedence for this. “Adapted to Their Condition and Necessities,” Paying for Rescues

There is also another post, representing alternate view, by a former Coastie, Mario Vittone, “The Cost of Rescue: Why Carnival Shouldn’t Pay and the U.S. Shouldn’t Accept”

gCaptain is reporting that Carnival Corp. is bowing to pressure from U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, said it will reimburse the U.S. for costs related to the breakdowns at sea of its Triumph and Splendor cruise ships. There is some additional background here.

Thoughts?

Thoughts of my own:

Somewhere in between charging nothing and charging the fully prorated lifecycle cost of the asset there is also the possibility of asking for reimbursement of the marginal cost attributed solely to the rescue.
Did Carnival ask for our help or did we volunteer it?
Obviously the Navy did not figure costs the same way the CG did, otherwise the hourly cost of an aircraft carrier would have dwarfed the hourly cost of a 378.
Some of us remember when the Coast Guard was your friendly free towing service for boats that frequently ran out of gas. That doesn’t happen as much anymore.
Maybe we just need to collect more in the way of fees from the foreign flag ships that make up the cruise industry.

Japan’s Coast Guard may be Picking Up Retiring Destroyers

Posted on April 13, 2013 by Chuck Hill

MSDF DD “HATSUYUKI”Class 127 ‘Isoyuki’. |Source=By JMSDF[http://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/formal/gallery/ships/dd/hatsuyuki/127.html] |Date=2008_07_06 |Author=User: A&W |Permission=GFDL ([http://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/formal/notice/index

Japan’s coast guard may be picking up additional ships in the form of Retiring Destroyers. Since their Coast Guard does not seem to have a defense role, there are some challenging issues to worked out in terms of weapons and manning.

Quick Overview of FY2014 Budget–Aviation Week/Fiercehomelandsecurity

Posted on April 13, 2013 by Chuck Hill

Aviationweek.com has a quick overview of the proposed FY2014 budget. I’ll have more on this later, but I’m otherwise occupied right now.

Fiercehomelandsecurity.com has more on the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security as well.

Huntington Ingalls OPC Concept Model

Posted on April 11, 2013 by Chuck Hill

Defensenews has a story about a proposal from Huntington Ingalls (HII) to use their LPD hull for a dedicated Ballistic Missile Defense Ship, but it also has a photo of a model purported to be HII’s concept for the Offshore Patrol Cutter.

The ship looks conventional. It makes no apparent attempt at “stealth.” It appears to be essentially a flush-deck design with a small step down aft of the flight deck. It has single conventional tripod mast, mounted immediately behind the bridge. It appears to have twin shafts and rudders of the conventional type. The 57mm is mounted a deck above the foc’sle, presumably to keep it dry and give it a better minimum range over the bow.

International Mine Countermeasures Exercise 13

Posted on April 8, 2013 by Chuck Hill

US Naval Forces CENTCOM is hosting a MCM exercise May 6-30 with expected participation by more than 30 countries. The exercise is expected to

… exercise a wide spectrum of defensive operations designed to protect international commerce and trade; mine countermeasures, maritime security operations (MSO) and maritime infrastructure protection (MIP).

“This multidisciplinary defense exercise is focused on maritime security for commerce and trade from the port of origin to the port of arrival…Our planners have included events that address more of the security picture than just mines on the high seas.”

…New to this year’s exercise, MSO will introduce shipping escort, and visit, board, search and seizure operations. Industry representatives will also lead an oil spill response table-top discussion during the exercise.

The MIP portion of the exercise focuses on protecting maritime points of origin and arrival, such as ports or offshore terminals. This portion of the exercise will include shore and harbor security operations; visit, board, search and seizure teams; and specialized aircraft.

Aside from the mine hunting, sounds like it will include a lot of Coast Guard functions. With six 110s and deployable forces in the area, it appears likely the CG will have some part in the exercise. Last year two 110s acted as opposition forces. Hopefully this year, CG units will be among the Blue forces.

(Thanks to Lee for the lead)

Perhaps They Need a Coast Guard

Posted on April 8, 2013 by Chuck Hill

While some in the US may wonder if we would be better off splitting the Coast Guard up into separate agencies, in the UK they are wondering if perhaps they need a Coast Guard

Three New References

Posted on April 3, 2013 by Chuck Hill

I have added and linked three recent publications to the References Page.

Two from Ronald O’Rourke and the Congressional Research Service:

“Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress” (pdf) Congressional Research Service, Ronald O’Rourke, Coordinator, Specialist in Naval Affairs, March 28, 2013
“Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress,”Congressional Research Service, Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, March 15, 2013

And one from the JCS:

Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, March 25, 2013

What Do We Do With All These Drones Now?

Posted on April 3, 2013 by Chuck Hill

Defense News reports the Air Force is now attempting to figure out how to employ the hundreds of Reaper and Predator UAVs that entered USAF service or are still on order that now appear excess as a result of the end of the US participation in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Several options are considered but none appears to be sufficient to use the large number that will be in the inventory.

There is one very interesting statistic included in the report, comparing the cost of the Reaper UAV with a manned alternative, the MC-12:

“And it’s not cheap to fly a Reaper. An hour of air time costs about $8,000, according to a 2012 audit by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Compare that to the $6,000-per-hour tab for an MC-12 Project Liberty, a twin-engine King Air plane flown by a pilot and a co-pilot with a technician and analyst in the back.”

Related: Surplus ISR Aircraft–MC-12Ws

Suddenly LPG

Posted on April 3, 2013 by Chuck Hill

gCaptain is reporting the rapid growth of liquified petroleum gas exports from US ports. Sounds like this may be a new and significant challenge for port security, and possibly a potential terrorist target.