UAS Developments

Posted on by
14

There has been some interesting news on unmanned air systems (UAS).

A “sense and avoid” radar system has been developed for the the Navy’s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) land based system. Replacing “See and Avoid” with no eyes on board has been a problem in integrating UAS with the domestic air traffic control system. This system does not give all around detection, but then eyes don’t see under the plane or what is coming up behind either.

Lighter than air, or in this case slightly heavier than air always seems almost ready. The Army and Northrop Grumman’s optionally manned long endurance, multi-intelligence vehicle (LEMV). has had its first flight.

“HAV business development director Hardy Giesler told AIN today that, configured as a freighter, the airship could carry a payload of 20 tonnes, but for the ISR mission it is designed to carry a 2,500-pound payload at 20,000 feet for 21 days. The Army says the airship will perform the ISR mission with fuel consumption 10 times less than that of mission-comparable platforms, and that it will provide a 2,000-mile radius of action.”
There is also a report that the few land based drones the Department of Homeland security has employed over water have not been as successful as might have been hoped. It does look like this report originated with Customs and Border Protection’s aviation unit. They might have their own agenda.

Reading about the Arctic

Posted on by
1

I had family visiting for a few days early this week and was unable to post. While I was away a number of stories appeared concerning the Arctic. I will just reference them with short comments.

There is an article here, “On Thin Ice: U.S. Capability Lacking in the Race for the Arctic,” by a recent Annapolis graduate that provides a good primer on the state of US interest in the Arctic and why we should care. It also has some thoughtful recommendations.

Marine Log reports

AUGUST 7, 2012 — Bruce Harland, Vice President-Commercial Services of Crowley Maritime Corporation, testified this week on behalf of Crowley and the American Waterways Operators (AWO) before a Kodiak, Alaska, field hearing of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations.  The hearing, which was held at the request of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK-R) and led by Subcommittee chairwoman Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), focused on the need for a robust U.S. Coast Guard presence in Alaska as the U.S. pursues expanding navigation opportunities in the Arctic region.

His recommendations included:

  • Accurate charting and hydrographic information;
  • Greater use of electronic charting and other aids;
  • Increased AIS coverage to help identify vessels;
  • A vessel traffic system for Unimak Pass and Bering Straits;
  • More accurate regional weather and tide information;
  • Improved Coast Guard incident response and search and rescue capabilities;
  • Greater ice breaking capabilities; and
  • Establishment of a Deepwater Arctic Port.

To confirm Mr. Harland’s concern about charts, NOAA is telling us the charts of the Arctic waters are terribly inadequate.

The Commandant advises that while leasing icebreakers may be helpful in the short term, leasing alone is not a long term solution.

Navy times reports the Commandant told a U.S. Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, regarding near term preparations in the Arctic. particularly in regard to Shell’s intention to drill exploratory wells,

“For right now, we are well prepared, because like we always do traditionally, we have multi-mission assets that we can deploy, that are very capable, and that are sufficient for the level of human activity that’s going on this summer and perhaps for the next three or four summers.”

The Coast Guard cutter Juniper (WLB-201) is participating in Exercise Nanook, with Canadian and Danish forces in the waters between Greenland and Canada. This is the third year of CG participation.

Meanwhile the Russians are building a huge new 568 foot long, 33,540 ton, 235,000 HP, nuclear icebreaker to add to their already large fleet, and the they also planning on investing Billions in Arctic infrastructure including bases for the Navy and Maritime Boarder Troops (Coast Guard). I don’t see this as a military threat, but it does seem like the Russians are paying a lot more attention than the US government. They are acting while we wrangle.

CBP Rejects CG Air Asset Management System

Posted on by
Reply

Fiercehomelandsecurity is reporting that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has rejected Department auditors’ recommendation that CBP adopt the Coast Guard’s ALMIS aviation maintenance information system.

“‘CBP should promptly terminate’ its planned acquisition of a standalone IT system for aircraft, auditors say–something which James Tomsheck, CBP assistant commissioner for the office of internal affairs, said in the component’s official response to auditors that it won’t do.”

The Department had hoped to increase efficiency by integrating the both CG and CBP aircraft maintenance under a single system.

Read the full story here.

Innovative Ideas from the Brits

Posted on by
7

A couple of very interesting videos of clever ideas that work together and might have Coast Guard applications.

First there is this little tracked amphibious truck, which can be launched from and climb back onto the catamaran work boat in the second video. Looks like these might have application in maintaining aids to navigation in rivers, deltas, shallow water, marshes, and possibly over snow and ice.

They might also come in handy during floods and for occasional atypical SAR cases.

Thanks to Lee for bringing these to my attention; I’m pretty sure he saw them at http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/

GAO Responds to Fleet Mix Studies, Part 2, Commentary

Posted on by
12

This is my commentary on the Fleet Mix Studies and GAO’s response to them. Part 1, which outlined the results of the studies and GAO’s reaction is here.

Other, previous, related posts include:
Offshore and Aviation Fleet Mix Study Published
Fleet Mix Where Are the Trade-offs

General Comments applicable to the evaluation process

While the best way to consider acquisitions is to consider lifecycle costs, these don’t seem to have been considered by any of the players involved. The NSCs have crews substantially smaller than the 378s they replaced. Presumably they also have lower maintenance and fuel costs as well. If lifecycle costs were considered there would have been less likelihood the NSCs would have been deferred or cancelled, as they seem to have been.

On the other hand the FRCs and OPCs are likely to cost more than the vessels they replace, except that some of the first OPCs are likely to actually replace 378s, which are probably much more costly to operate.

Also the value of these vessels as national security assets is not considered. Trade-offs of construction of cutters vs Navy ships was not considered.

How the Coast Guard has handled the process:

The Coast Guard may have made all the right decisions regarding type and number of assets, but they have not done a good job of explaining why the decisions are the right one, and they do not seem to have succeeded in building a consensus in favor of the program in the Department, Congress and the Administration. These people like to think they are part of the decision making process and, like it or not, they are. They have to be brought along the decision chain, so that they understand the rationale for the ultimate choices. The Fleet mix studies were an opportunity to do that, that was not fully exploited.

Some of the weaknesses I see in the Coast Guard’s studies were that

  • There were no ice-capable ships, so the budgetary effect of this requirement was not dealt with.
  • There is no consideration of trade-off between types.
  • There are no alternative types considered.
  • There was no exploration of the consequences of building less than the “Program of Record.”
  • The time dimension is largely ignored, in that there was little reference to the catastrophic effect of stretching out the replacement program.

It is unfortunate that the Coast Guard took so long to deliver their Fleet Mix Study to Congress. It was certainly not perfect, but Congress asked for it, and it should have been seen as part of a continuing process to build support. Feedback could have been incorporated and there would be an improved product by now. It is still not too late to use follow on studies in an iterative process to help convince decision makers outside the Coast Guard. Continue reading →

Inflation in Shipbuilding

Posted on by
Reply

The Congressional Budget Office, July 2012 “An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2013 Shipbuilding Plan” (pdf), has an interesting sidebar, that applies to the Coast Guard as well as the Navy. It confirms what we have noted before (“Comparing Apples and Oranges-Ships and Cars”) The cost of ship building in the US is going up at a faster rate than inflation in general.

“Inflation in Shipbuilding

“An important factor affecting the Navy’s and the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) estimates is assumptions about future increases in the cost of building naval ships. The Department of Defense (DoD) has an overall estimate of future inflation (known as an inflator) that it uses to project increases in the costs of its procurement programs. However, according to the Navy, DoD’s inflator is lower than the actual inflation that occurred in the naval shipbuilding industry in the past decade. The Navy provided CBO with a historical shipbuilding index for 1960 through 2011 that incorporates the growth in the costs of labor and materials that the industry has experienced in the past. To project ship inflation for 2012 through 2018, the service extrapolated from that historical experience, using a weighted composite of annual percentage changes in the costs of labor and materials specific to shipbuilding. Those data are based on information provided by the shipyards about labor costs in the past, as well as on advance pricing agreements, vendor surveys, and projections of the cost of materials from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“From 2012 through 2018, the Navy projects, the index will grow at an average annual rate of 2.9 percent. By comparison, the gross domestic product (GDP) price index, which measures the prices of all final goods and services in the economy, will grow at an average annual rate of 1.6 percent between 2012 and 2018, in CBO’s estimation. The difference between the two rates implies that annual inflation will be 1.3 percentage points higher for shipbuilding programs during that period than for the economy as a whole.”

This suggest a number of things.

To some extent, this additional inflation, combined with low production rates, explains growth in the cost of the Coast Guard’s recapitalization over and above normal inflation rates.

We can expect additional actual cost growth in the future. Since cost will be compared to overall inflation rates the Coast Guard can expect more criticism as the project is dragged out.

Since the 10 and 20 year treasury bond rate (about 2.2%) is actually less than the inflation rate in the ship building industry (2.9%), the government would actually save money borrowing to pay for the accelerated construction. In addition construction at a higher rate and possibly multi-year procurements might save as much as an additional savings, possibly as much as 30%.

GAO reports on Declining Readiness of Legacy Fleet

Posted on by
5

The GAO has published a new report, GAO-12-741, “Legacy Vessels’ Declining Conditions Reinforce Need for More Realistic Operational Targets”. I’ve added a link to the report on the reference page.

Hopefully I’ll be able to review it soon and provide the highlights. After a cursory glance one surprising result is that the 210s seem to be holding up better than the 270s, in spite of there age. This may be a reflection of their simplicity–fewer things to go wrong.

Shifts in Navy Presence, What Does It Mean to the Coast Guard

Posted on by
12

The naval centric blog Informationdissemination has an interesting series of charts that purportedly show what the Navy thinks will be typical fleet distributions in the years 2013, 2017, and 2020.

It included a couple of surprises that might impact the Coast Guard.

Apparently there will be some significant changes in the forces assigned to SouthCom (Fourth Fleet). This could reasonably be expected to impact drug enforcement operations in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific and Law Enforcement Detachments assigned to SouthCom Navy assets.

From five ships in 2013, typically:

  • 2 CG/DDG
  • 1 FFG
  • 1 Amphib
  • 1 Hospital Ship

In 2017, PCs and JHSVs replace the cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. The force is expected to include fourteen vessels:

  • 10 PC
  • 1  Amphib
  • 2 JHSV (Joint High Speed Vessels)
  • 1 Hospital Ship

By 2020 two LCS replace the amphib. The composition is expected to include fifteen vessels:

  • 10 PC
  • 2 LCS
  • 2 JHSV (Joint High Speed Vessels)
  • 1 Hospital Ship

The PCs are presumably Cyclone Class, because there are no new construction PCs planned for the Navy, but there is some question as to whether the Cyclone class will last until 2017 much less 2020.

The coding in the charts tell us the two JHSVs are expected to be permanently stationed in the area. (Could that mean Puerto Rico?) The other assets rotate in and out of the area. The JHSVs are fast. They have a helo deck. I haven’t seen any indication of their boat handling arrangement yet. They are basically high speed ferries, intended for intra-theater transportation. Their range is relatively limited.

The charts don’t indicate any shift in interest into the Arctic. Hard to tell if that omission is meaningful. Presumably some of the 15 ships on the West Coast (Third Fleet) could operate in the Arctic, but there is no change in the numbers on either coast in any of the three charts.

(Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the charts tell us nothing about the six WPCs currently assigned to Patrol Forces South West Asia (PATFORSWA)).