New Ships’ Boats

The Acquisition Directorate is reporting, “The Coast Guard on June 7 awarded four firm fixed-price production contracts to deliver the first test boats for the seven-meter Cutter Boat Over-The-Horizon-IV (CB-OTH-IV) project.  The contracts were awarded to MetalCraft Marine U.S. (Clayton, NY), SAFE Boats International (Port Orchard, Wash.), Silver Ships, Inc. (Theodore, Ala.) and William E. Munson Company (Burlington, Wash).”

“…Production orders are scheduled to begin in the second quarter of 2012.

“The Coast Guard plans to acquire up to 71 seven-meter CB-OTH-IVs. The acquisition also includes up to 20 boats for Customs and Border Protection and 10 boats for the U.S. Navy, for a total of up to 101 boats.

“For more information, check out www.uscg.mil/acquisition/boats/”

Acquisition Directorate Publishes June Newsletter

The Acquisitions Directorate has published their June Newletter.

  • The front page article discusses the process of siting a Rescue 21 tower along the Big Sur Coast.
  • There is a photo of an Miami based HU-25 taking off on its last mission before the type was replaced by the HC-144.
  • There are comments about the Bertholf’s effectiveness on ALPAT and its previous drug enforcement mission, largely quoting the commanding officer.
  • And Master Chief Ayers answers the question, “…what are we doing to make sure we can support the New Stuff in the long run?” discussing development of an ILSP (Integrated Logistics Support Plan).

It is available as a pdf. You can down load it here.

Piracy Update, 12 June 2011

The economic impact of piracy is likely to take a huge leap, because of changes in the way insurance rates are figured. This is expected to add billions to shipping costs. Of course it won’t hurt the insurance companies, but we can expect the cost to be passed along.

The Practice of hijacking ships rather than simply robbing them is spreading to the South China Sea, an area where piracy was common in the not too distant past. Additionally there is a report that shipping companies may be withholding information from their crews regarding the kind of treatment they can expect at the hands of pirates. (Note: BMP means “Best management Practices” and NSC means National Security Council.)

So far, no ship with armed security guards on board has been taken by pirates. The US has encouraged its ships to hire security, but some other countries still contend it is bad policy. Some even prohibit the practice. The shipping companies seem to be coming around to the conclusion armed security is a good idea. At least one Dutch company is indicating they may re-flag their ships if the Netherlands does not permit them to hire private security.

Another indication this may be a very long campaign. Japan has established its first permanent base outside of Japan since WWII to support their counter piracy effort.

The fact that Yemen, just across the Gulf of Aden from Somalia seems to be devolving into the the same sort of failed state, is not a good sign.

Arctic Patrol Cutter, State of the Art

Recently the Commandant mentioned the possibility of a requirement for an Arctic Patrol Cutter. This was the first time I had seen official mention of something less than a full fledged icebreaker for arctic patrol.

There has also been a recent DOD report which referred to the “limited inventory of ice-capable vessels.”

Thought there might be some interest in seeing similar ships the rest of the world is producing. I’ll go from smallest to largest:

Danish Knud Rasmussen class, two ships Knud Rasmussen and Ejnar Mikkelsen, completed 2008/2009. References and analysis here, here, and here:

https://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Royal_Danish_Naval_Vessel_Knut_Rasmussen_participates_in_Operation_Nanook_2010.jpg

Continue reading

D-Day, 6 June 1944

File:1944 NormandyLST.jpg

A LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel) from the U.S. Coast Guard-manned USS Samuel Chase disembarks troops of the U.S. Army’s First Division on the morning of June 6, 1944 (D-Day) at Omaha Beach. USCG photograph

The Coast Guard historian has an excellent collection (broken link) of stories about the Coast Guard’s participation in the invasion. Virtually all the American made video footage you may see of the Normandy invasion was done by the Coast Guard. The Army Signal Corp lost their footage overboard.

Famous Film maker John Ford, who also filmed the attack on Midway, was in the Navy, but he landed on D-Day with Coast Guard Cameramen. The following is from: “We Shot D-Day on Omaha Beach (An Interview With John Ford)” by Pete Martin, the article first appeared in The American Legion Magazine, June 1964.

Ford was head of the Photographic Department of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) under General “Wild Bill” Donovan. The cameramen in his unit were attached to the Coast Guard and trained for every sort of action. They could drop by parachute, land with raiders, commandos, infantry. They knew about amphibious landings. All Ford had to do was name it. They could do it. He’d hand picked his group of helpers. They were a superb team. Ford was told to head that team up and get both color and black-and-white footage of the invasion of Omaha Beach from start to finish.

“I take my hat off to my Coast Guard kids. They were impressive. They went in first, not to fight, but to photograph. They went with the troops. They were the first ones ashore.”

DIY Fleet Mix Study

The Coast Guard has not published its “Fleet MIX Study” though we have had some indication of the results of an early iteration.  A GAO report gave us this:

Table 1: Alternative Fleet Mix Asset Quantities According to Coast Guard’s Phase 1
Fleet Mix Analysis, Surface/Aviation Platforms

————————Program of record/Fleet mix 1/Fleet mix 2/Fleet mix 3/Fleet mix 4 (objective)
NSC                                        8                        9                     9                       9                            9
OPC                                      25                      32                   43                    50                           57
FRC                                      58                      63                    75                   80                           91
HC-130                                22                      32                    35                   44                           44
HC-144                                36                      37                     38                  40                           65
HH-60                                 42                      80                    86                   99                         106
HH-65                                102                    140                    15                   188                         223
UAS, Land-Based              12                       19                     21                     21                           22
UAS, Cutter-Based            18                       15                     19                     19                           19
Source: December 2009 Coast Guard data.

Later, I looked at the requirement for large cutters based only on the size of the EEZ and continental shelf size that seemed to indicate we need a lot more emphasis in the Pacific.

In a comment on that post, “Desk Riding Cutterman” gave us his interpretation of the number of ships the Coast Guard needs on patrol for various missions “based on my personal ranking of each mission area and an assumption that our fleet is not limited by the proposal make by ICGS nearly 10 years ago.

Generally you have the following needs:

D1: 2.0 for SAR coverage
D5: 1.0 for LMR/SAR/PWCS
D7: 4.0 for Florida Straits and Windward Pass plus other threat areas and LMR enforcement
D8: 1.0 for LMR enforcement
D11: 0.5 for CONUS enforcement and Southern WOC fisheries
D13: 0.5 for CONUS enforcement and Northern WOC fisheries
D14: 1.0 for Western fisheries
D17: 2.0 for offshore SAR (1.0 during summer) and berring fisheries
1.0 for RIMPAC and High seas drift net operations with Asian partners
2.0 for DOD deployments (AFRICOM, CENTCOM, and PACCOM)
6.0 for JIATF (3.0 in each theater)

I’d like to open up a discussion to talk about this. If you don’t have an all inclusive answer that’s OK, but what are the important consideration?

  • What do we need?
  • What do we need to be doing we are not doing now?
  • Are there any excess capacity?
  • What are the consequences of inaction?
  • What are the missions? Priorities?
  • Do we need ice capable arctic patrol vessels? How many?
  • Icebreakers?
  • Asset types?
  • Aircraft numbers/mix/location appropriate?
  • Geographic distribution?
  • Tradeoffs? Numbers vs capabilities?

 

Collision Between Block Is. Ferry and Morro Bay, 2008

NTSB results are out. (www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2011/MAR1101.pdf)

First, I read the New London Day article that the Coast Guard news and blog summary pointed to,

“According to the NTSB’s report, it found probable cause of the collision between the ferry Block Island and the Coast Guard cutter Morro Bay was caused by the failure of the bridge watch officers on both vessels to monitor their radars, sufficiently assess traffic, and compensate for limited visibility. Contributing to the accident was the failure of the bridge watch officers on both vessels to maintain a proper lookout and to sound appropriate fog signals….The Coast Guard promised to use fog signals and to post lookouts in such conditions in the future.”

It was really a very minor accident, but it could have been a lot worse. From the NTBS report:

…The ferry was carrying a total of 305 people and the cutter had 21 crewmembers on board. As a result of the collision, two passengers on the Block Island sustained minor injuries and were treated and released that same afternoon. The Block Island sustained about $45,000 in damage and the Morro Bay about $15,000. “

In fog, with visibility estimated at 500 yards, Morro Bay was not sounding fog signals or keeping a proper lookout? Reading the newpaper account, my thought was, “what could they have been thinking?” but of course it was more complicated.

Morro Bay had just completed a yard period. The captain had relieved the previous day. This was his first voyage as CO. After getting underway the rudder indicator was found to be five degrees off, and the throttle was not functioning properly. But both of these were corrected quickly. They actually were sounding fog signals, but, as the they had on every previous voyage in the crew’s memory, they were using a loud hailer that it turned out did not produce the 130 dB required. The cutter’s radar overlay and the electronic chart were out of alignment with each other and the gyrocompass was giving erratic readings. Recognizing that the the gyro was misbehaving, the radar was switched to head up, so the radar was not as stable or as useful as it should have been, and the helmsman was steering by magnetic, which also distracted the OOD. Two EMs were on the bridge, trying to trouble shoot the gyro. The collision occurred at 1215, as crewmembers were going to, or returning from lunch. During the period preceding the collision there were always five to seven people in the pilot house. There were numerous small craft in the area. There had been a close call with a power boat approximately 30 feet long, that the radar reportedly failed to pick up, only five minutes earlier, prompting the OOD to recognize visibility had gone from about two miles down to about 500 yards. He attempted to contact the CO, who returned from lunch only moments before the collision.

The Block Island ferry certainly was not blameless. It was going 15 knots and not using its automatic fog signal, preferring to sound them manually, although the captain admitted he may have gone up to five minutes between signals and their part time lookout was inside the pilot house with the doors closed.

The vessels were in a crossing situation with the ferry on the Morro Bay’s starboard hand, the ferry heading South and Morro Bay generally West.

On the Morro Bay, “everyone was a lookout,” so no one was, and specifically no one was stationed outside the enclosed bridge where they might have had a better chance of hearing a fog signal, although at least windows on the bridge were open. No one was specifically charged with monitoring the radar which was set on the 1.5 mile scale. Closing speed would have been approximately 18 knots, meaning the ferry would have transited the 1.5 miles covered by the radar in approximately 5 minutes. Quoting the NTSB report,

“Because the Morro Bay’s radar range scale was set to 1.5 miles, it is understandable that the Block Island did not appear on the cutter’s radar until probably about 1208 or 1209, some 11–12 minutes after the ferry had already entered the open waters of Block Island Sound. It was only then that the outer limits of the cutter’s 1.5-mile radar range scale would have picked up the ferry. Nevertheless, even after the Block Island would have appeared on the cutter’s 1.5-mile radarscope about 1208 or 1209, no one on the Morro Bay noticed the ferry on the radar screen, and a close quarters situation was allowed to develop in spite of properly functioning radar equipment. About this time, numerous personnel changes had taken place on the cutter’s bridge with people coming and going, which could have been distracting. Shortly before the accident, between five and seven persons were on the bridge, which was not an expansive space. The crossing of the 30-foot-long powerboat about 500 yards in front of the Morro Bay at 1210, 5 minutes before the collision, could also explain why the ferry continued to go unnoticed for the next few minutes. The chief took steps to ensure that the distance between the vessels opened, which was appropriate. However, while the chief watched the powerboat clear the Morro Bay’s path ahead, valuable time was lost in detecting the Block Island on the radar. Additional detection time (1–3 minutes, possibly) was also lost while the chief monitored the helmsman to ensure that he followed the order to return to original course after yielding to the powerboat. The chief also tried to reach the commanding officer by telephone to inform him of the decreasing visibility. The phone call took some time because the commanding officer was not immediately located (he was returning to the bridge). It cannot be determined who among the many persons on the bridge was monitoring the radar, or whether the radar was being monitored at all, during this phone call. The NTSB therefore concludes that the bridge watch personnel on both vessels failed to use their radars effectively in the minutes leading up to the collision.”

The ferry detected the Morro Bay when it appeared on one of its two radars then set on a 0.75 mile scale. The ferry captain “...immediately reduced speed, stopped the engines, and sounded the fog signal. He then reversed his engines” but apparently did not change course. On the Morro Bay, about 20 seconds after the Captain had returned to the bridge, they heard a prolonged blast to starboard. Moving to the starboard wing they “...saw the Block Island emerging from the fog, about 50–100 yards away. The chief pulled back on the throttles and ordered the helmsman to put the wheel to full port rudder.

—————————-

Reading the full report, made me a bit more sympathetic. Still, it’s a cautionary tale.

That the radar failed to pickup a 30 foot boat at 500 yards suggest that, despite a later finding it was working properly, this was not the case. Why wasn’t there some sort of minimal sea trial after the availability before starting for home, that would have picked up the problems with the rudder angle indicator, throttle, gyro, and possibly the radar? Shouldn’t district have insisted on it? But what about the manning? It was only a six hour trip. Too much to ask for an assigned lookout and someone on the radar? And why only use the 1.5 mile scale?

When things start getting difficult, it is alright to ask for help even before you really need it. That may have been happening when they heard the prolonged blast, but by then it was too late.

We were very lucky we did not have another Blackthorn or Cuyahoga or worse yet, a sunken ferry with 300 people in the water.