• CODAD (Combined Diesel and Diesel)
• CODOG (Combined Diesel or Gas Turbine)
• CODAG (Combined Diesel and Gas Turbine)
• CODAG-WARP (Combined Diesel and Gas
Turbine — Waterjet and Refined Propeller)
• CODELAG (Combined Diesel Electric and
Gas Turbine)
• AE (All Electric).
It goes on to talk about hull forms, alternatives to conventional propellers, construction materials and modularity.
Beginning on the about fourth page (of nine, marked as page 29) it becomes a sales pitch for two concepts that were being promoted by Blohm and Voss. One of them, the MEKO CSL (combat ship, littoral). might be of some interest in that it is not too far from the specs for the Offshore Patrol Cutter, except that it appears too compromised toward higher speed and does not look like it has either the endurance or the seakeeping that would make a good cutter.
The ship is going to be a close contemporary of the Offshore Patrol Cutter with both the new frigate and the OPC programs scheduled to deliver their first ship in 2020. The Type 26 is expected to displace 5,400 tons full load, so it is about 20% larger than the National Security Cutters and perhaps twice the size of the OPC. Still some of the thinking might be applicable.
Propulsion:
“For propulsion, BAE has opted for a conventional but upgraded hybrid system combining gas turbines for top speeds and diesel generators for a fuel-efficient quiet mode, and these generators will provide significantly higher speeds than those of the Type 23.”
The 4,300 ton Type 23 cruises 7,800 miles at 17 knots so presumably they are talking about 20 knots or more on diesel-electric alone, for this relatively large ship. Like the now 22 year old type 23s, they will replace, the Type 26s’ generators will supply power for both propulsion and hotel services.
Boats, Mission Modules, and Aircraft:
“For greater flexibility of the combat systems, the ship will have an integrated mission bay and hangar, allowing the Navy to more easily deploy varying numbers of helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and boats according to the situation.”
The frigate, like many new designs, incorporates provision for reconfigurable space. What they have done differently is make this space adaptable for trade-offs among helicopters, unmanned vehicles (air, surface, and sub-surface), and boats.
Computer Systems:
“This basically means having a single computer system that can support the multiple pieces of software used throughout the ship, rather than installing separate hardware systems and local area networks from each supplier.
“Using blade server technology originally developed for the banking industry to provide reliable, high-power processing, the computing environment will be able to run different “virtual” operating systems to cope with the variety of programmes the ship will use, from navigation to combat management.”
Common hardware sounds like a great idea, but some are already questioning the choice of a Windows operating system.
More:
There are lots of conceptual drawings, a couple of videos, and additional links along with exhaustive comment (over 500) here.
The specs for the Offshore Patrol Cutter have not been made available to the general public, but the Commandant recently remarked that he hoped to repeat the success of the Webber Class Fast Response Cutter (FRC) procurement by doing something similar with the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) in terms of using a parent craft approach (sorry can’t find the link).
Last time the acquisitions Directorate (CG-9) published a list of shipbuilders interested in the OPC project there were twelve, Austal, BAE, Bath Iron Works, Bollinger, Derecktor, Eastern Ship Building Group, Marinette Marine, General Dynamics NASSCO, Northrop Grumman, Todd Pacific, Signal International, and VT Halter Marine. Some of these ship builders are very experienced and are more than capable of starting a design from scratch, but others either already have international partners or, having no experience in building this type of ship, are likely to seek a partner.
What similar designs have been built recently that might be adapted to create an OPC?
The OPCs are much more complex than the FRCs and even in that case, there were substantial changes to the parent craft required to create the Webber class. Speed was increased substantially, compartmentation was improved, and it was more heavily armed, so we should not expect a carbon copy of any existing design.
Many of these designs have all their propulsion machinery in a single compartment. At least one appears to have all its ship’s service generators in one compartment. (I believe the OPC spec rules out both of these vulnerabilities, but these are things that can be changed.) Other changes are also likely to be required to comply with American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Rules for Building and Classing Naval Vessels (NVR).
Very few meet the range requirement. Even fewer are equipped with an icebelt.
Still it might be interesting to see what is currently on the market.
For reference I am going to provide the length and beam (in meters) of the some familiar ships.
Perry Class FFG (long hull) 139×13.7
National Security Cutter 127×16
Hamilton Class WHEC 115×13
327 foot WHEC 100×12.5
Alex Haley 86×15
270 foot WMEC 82×12
210 foot WMEC 64×10.4
Of these the 327 at 100×12.5 might serve as a sort of benchmark in that we know from experience with these ships, it is possible to create a very comfortable and seaworthy ship of this size, while smaller ships have not been totally satisfactory for the service envisioned.
The FFG also serves as a benchmark in that it shows that a ship with a 13.7meter beam can have a hanger that can house two H-60s, not a requirement for the OPC, but perhaps a good option, particularly with the Navy increasing the size of the Firescout to that of a full size helicopter.
It appears that international partners could include:
Damen (Netherlands)
Navantia (Spain)
DCNS (France)
BAE (UK)
Fassmer (Germany)
Blohm + Voss MEKO (Germany)
Hyundai (S. Korea)
STX (S. Korea, France Finland, Romania, Canada and US)
Some of these builders have more than one design that might be considered.
Damen
Damen appears particularly well placed, having provided the parent craft for the Fast Response Cutter. They have two potential parent craft, the Holland Class (108×16) and the Sigma series (Ship Integrated Geometrical Modularity Approach) of corvettes and light frigates.
As suggested by the illustration above, Thales already has an interest in offering the Holland class as the OPC. It was shown off recently in Key West. It shares many of the characteristics of the OPC including an emphasis on seakeeping and ballistic protection for key areas of the ship. At 3,750 tons, it is also the largest ship we will discuss in this post and probably the most expensive. Reportedly the mast and its associated sensors account for a sizable fraction of the ship’s cost, but also provide almost Aegis like capability. Its combined electric or diesel (CODELOD) propulsion system make loitering and slow cruise operations particularly economical. Still they would need greater range, possibly greater speed and an ice belt to satisfy the requirements for the the OPC, so might end up even larger.
Of the Sigma series, the Indonesian variant (105×13) looks closest to the OPC. Eight ships have been built or are building for Morocco and Indonesia, and apparently four more are planned for Vietnam. They appear to emphasize warship characteristics but are not built to naval standards and when the Netherlands decided to build their own offshore patrol vessels they rejected the Sigmas in favor of the Holland class. It is shorter ranged and its inclusion of only two very powerful diesels does not appear likely to be economical. Still the size looks right; it is “modular,” perhaps modifications are possible.
Navantia
Navantia, a very large and active builder of warships, including Aegis equipped frigates and LHDs for the Spanish and Australian Navies, has been very active in producing offshore patrol vessels recently.
They are producing a series of series of nine multipurpose ships for the Spanish Navy identified as Buque de Acción Marítima or “BAM” (93.9×14.2). “Modular design enables the ships to be modified for purposes outside main missions such as hydrographic research, intelligence gathering, diving support and salvage operations.” As built they have the range required for the OPC. They have a hybrid propulsion system, but speed is only a little over 20 knots.
They have also produce two classes of four each for the Venezuelan Navy. The largest of these are the 2400 ton Guaiquerí class patrol vessels (99×13.6)
Photo: Venezuelan OPV built by Navantia. via Wikipedia
They don’t have the range required, only 3500 nmi, or of course an icebelt, but otherwise they appear very close to the OPC including a 25 knot top speed.
If Navatia could combine the speed of the Guaiquerí with the range and economy of the BAM, they might have a winner.
DCNS
Obviously DCNS also has an interest in the OPC project. They have been pushing their Gowind family of vessels as both OPCs, corvettes and light frigates. The L’ Adroit (87×11) is probably too small to meet the OPC requirements, but the larger version (107×16) beginning offered to Malaysia appears much closer.
Gowind model at Boustead stand during DSA 2012
(picture: Navy Recognition)
BAE
A BAE design (90.5×13.5) built for Trinidad and Tobago, has been sold to Brazil and they expect to build five more of the ships, while a very similar BAE design, HTMS Krabi, is being built in Thailand. These ships don’t meet the range requirement, don’t have a hanger, and are limited to a 7 ton helicopter. Could the design be modified?
BAE also have in their portfolio the Lekiu_class_frigate (106×12.75) which does have a hangar. Two were completed for Malaysia in 1999. Two more of an updated design are proposed. These ships have a powerful CODAD (Combined Diesel and Diesel) powerplant that is good for 28 knots. Reduced power could still satisfy the OPC requirement.
Fassmer
Fassmer (Germany) appears to be primarily a builder of work boats and small craft, but they have had success with their 80 meter OPV design being adopted by Argentina, Chile, and Colombia for construction in country.
They have proposed some larger designs (pdf), but I’m not sure they bring much additional experience to the table.
Blohm + Voss “MEKO”
Blohm + Voss is a warship maker with experience going back a hundred years. They have a series they refer to as MEKO that includes a range of designs that have been built for several countries. These include six “MEKO 100” 98×14.3 design built for Malaysia and MEKO 200 series that includes 25 ships built for five different countries including CODAD as well as CODAG versions. (More pictures here)
Blohm & Voss may be the most successful exporter of warships in the last 50 years.
Hyundai (S. Korea)
Hyundai is primarily a commercial ship builder, but they might choose to offer a variant of their recently completed Inchon Class frigate (114×14).
STX (S. Korea)
STX (S. Korea, France Finland, Romania, Canada and US) is an extremely successful commercial ship builder with divisions all over the world. They have built cutters for the S. Korean Coast Guard and warships for France and Finland. The New Zealand Protector class (85×14) was designed by their Canadian division. It is unique in having an icebelt, but reportedly the ship turned out heavier than intended and the icebelt is lower than it should be.
Others
An outside chance is a design based on the Turkish Milgem (100×14.4).
MILGEM Photo: Turkish Naval Forces
I’m still a fan of the Danish Thetis (112×14.4) although I don’t think it will be in the running. It is a simple but roomy ship but the yard that built it is now out of business, so it has no advocate.
Photo: Thetis
Another way to approach the problem might be to consider the 327 or 378 as parent craft.
As noted in the post “GAO Responds to Fleet Mix Studies, Part 1, The Report,” the Department of Homeland Security “Cutter Study” raised the possibility of an austerely equipped Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) possibly deleting some equipment or capabilities of the ship as currently planned including:
Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (now referred to as the Ship’s Signals Exploitation Space or SSES)
Air Search and Fire Control Radars
Electronic Warfare Support Measures
Berthing space (114 instead of 122)
Weapons suite (e.g., 25mm gun instead of 57mm)
This got me to thinking. What do these ships really need, both for their peacetime functions and for possible wartime roles? I hope the Department’s suggestion presages a return to CNA (Center for Naval Analysis) to do a more formal evaluation of the effects of these changes. Until then, I’ll venture some comments on these proposed deletions, then go on to talk about how the ships might be equipped first for war, then for peace.
Several documents have emerged recently that provide more information on the proposed Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC), also known as the Maritime Security (Cutter), Medium (WMSM). This builds on information previously published (here, here, here,here and here).
The Request for Proposal included a projected build schedule for the first 11 ships.
FY 2016 Detail Design
FY 2017 OPC#1 Construction begins
FY 2018 OPC#2
FY 2019 OPC#3
FY 2020 OPC#4 and #5
FY 2021 OPC #6 and #7
FY 2022 OPC #8 and #9
FY 2023 OPC #10 and #11
There is a notation that the average cost of units 4-9 shall be $276M in FY2016 dollars. (Looks like there might be potential for a multi-year contract here.)
One of the big surprises to me (found in the Fleet Mix Study) was that the OPCs are expected to essentially take over all Alaska Patrols.
The draft Request for Proposal (RFP) also includes a requirement to equip all of them “to operate in areas of broken plate, pancake, and sea ice ranging from 10 to 30 inches thick.” Along with this, came a requirement to be able to operate an ice capable small boat as well. OPCs are also to have automated topside de-icers.
These characteristics combined with the Commandant’s affirmation that the ships should be capable of boat and helicopter operations in state five seas mean these ships will be very much more capable than the WMECs they are nominally replacing, and at least to some degree, that they are taking over duties previously assigned to 378s.
Towing ability to 10,000 tons is required, same as the 378s.
The ships are expected to be able to do Fueling at Sea (FAS), Replenishment at Sea (RAS), Vertical (Helicopter) Replenishment or VERTREP, and to refuel smaller vessels (apparently reflecting an expectation of sustained operations with WPCs or WPBs at locations remote from their bases).
Minimum ranges was specified as 7,500 nautical miles. (This is a reduction from 8,500 miles). Typical operations as outlined in the Concept of Operations (CONOPS) were 14 days between refueling, 21 days between replenishment, and 45-60 day patrols. It also stated there would typically be a four to six week inport “Charlie” (stand-down/maintenance) period after each patrol; a six to seven week dockside availability every two to three years; and a seven to eight week drydocking every four to five years. “In addition, the cutter will undergo 3-4 weeks of training and evaluation every 10-24 months.”
An expectation that the ships might operate with Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESG) was apparently a recent addition. This helps establish a floor for the ships’ maximum speed, since all the units typically operating in an Expeditionary Strike Group (LHAs, LHDs, LPD, LSDs) have speeds of 20 to 24 knots. When the current generation of LSDs is replaced in the not too distant future, all will do 22+ knots. Of the three ships that typically make up an ESG, the largest (LHAs or LHDs) all do at least 24 knots and frequently act as small aircraft carriers. If the OPCs are to be fast enough to stay with these ships and hopefully maneuver around them, then 25 knots appears to be a minimum rather than a nice to have.
The crew is not to exceed 100, but additional birthing must also be available for a 5 person AvDet and a 5-11 person “Signals Intelligence Support Element,” “and possibly others.”
There was reference to ballistic protection, that I had not seen before.
“The WMSM will provide increased protection for (sic.) small caliber weapons and shrapnel fragmentation around the bridge, CIC, and magazine spaces.”
The ships are to be built the American Bureau of Shipping Naval Ship Rules, but will not have explosive or underwater shock hardening.
Again we do not have access to the draft specifications, but we can deduce some details of the proposed equipment from the Allowance Equipage List included in the Draft RFP. All the systems below are referenced. (In a few cases there may be duplicate listing if different nomenclature is used for the same system.) The outfit, in most respects, repeats or even improves on that of the National Security Cutter:
Communications:
Military SAT com
Tactical Data Link System
IFF
SBU (presumably “Sensitive but Unclassified”) Network
SIPRNET (Classified Network)
NIPRNET (Unclassified Network)
Entertainment System
Sensors:
TSR-3D RARAD System, a multimode surface and air surveillance and target acquisition radar
Electro-Optic/Infrared Sensor system
RADIAC
Armament:
Mk 48 mod 1 Gun Weapon System (pdf), which includes the Mk 110 57mm gun, AN/SPQ-9B Surface search and Fire Control Radar, Electro-Optical sensor system Mk 20 mod 0, the Mk 160 GCS Mod 12, and Mk 12 Gun Computer System
Today the Coast Guard released a draft “request for proposal” (RFP) for the construction of the Offshore Patrol Cutters.
They also indicate they expect to meet with industry the week of July 9, request feedback by July 16, and that they will issue the RFP in September.
There is an awful lot of material here to absorb, but one thing I did notice immediately was the apparent intention to make all the OPC ice strengthened. “The discussion of operating environments was expanded to include Arctic climates. An ability to operate in areas of broken plate, pancake, and sea ice ranging from 10 to 30 inches thick was added. However, the summary states that the WMSM will not conduct ice breaking as a mission (page iii).”
In my post, Irresponsibly Rebuilding the Fleet-a Look at the Future, I talked about why it was essential that the Coast Guard build at least two Offshore Patrol Cutters (OPC) a year, when it finally starts building them in 2016. My concern is that there is still no wide spread support for funding the Coast Guard’s “Program of Record” which includes 25 OPCs in addition to eight National Security Cutters and 58 Fast Response Cutters.
The Coast Guard has recently gone public with similar concerns.
Studies are playing an important part in the effort to build consensus on what the Coast Guard’s fleet of Cutters should look like in the future and how to get there. May 28 of this year, we looked at the Executive Summary of the Offshore and Aviation Fleet Mix Study completed in 2009, but only recently made public. The Coast Guard completed a second phase of its Fleet Mix Study which looked at the effects of two funding levels on the procurement process in May 2011 and the Department of Homeland Security completed a “Cutter Study” in August 2011.
May 31, 2012 GAO released a report to Congressional Committees titled “Observations on the Coast Guard’s and the Department of Homeland Security’s Fleet Studies” [PDF] along with briefing slides provided on April 20, 2012. I’m going to quote GAO’s report and slides extensively.
GAO saw there objectives as to:
“(1) What are the key results of the Coast Guard’s Fleet Mix Studies and DHS’s Cutter Study with respect to recapitalization and operations?
“(2) How useful are these studies to DHS, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Coast Guard for informing recapitalization decisions?” Continue reading →
The Coast Guard has made public the Executive Summary of its Offshore and Aviation Fleet Mix Study. “FierceHomelandSecurity” has published a short summary of the content.
They also provided a direct link to the “Executive Summary” (a 24 page pdf). It is heavy with acronyms, and there is no list of acronyms attached to the Executive Summary, although there is probably one in the full study. I’ve attached a list of those I found, at the end of the post for those who might want a little help going through the summary.
“This initial phase of the FMA (Fleet Mix Analysis-ed.) is intended to address offshore surface and aviation capabilities. Follow-on FMA phases will assess capabilities needed for coastal and inland missions as well as emerging missions, such as Arctic operations and those of the Deployable Operations Group (DOG).
“ES.5.1 SCOPE:
“The FMA explored the projected Fleet mix requirements to meet the CG’s 11 statutory missions in FY2025. Mission requirements were based on nine Mission Performance Plans (MPPs) and an assessment of critical activities, such as training and support, which consume asset mission availability.
“The FMA included all CG aviation (fixed- and rotary-wing), all white-hull cutters (FRC up to NSC), and all applicable C4ISR systems.
“The FMA focused on activities in the offshore and aviation operating environment. Offshore and aviation are defined in the FMA as being generally 50+ nautical miles offshore and/or requiring extended presence. The FMA also considered missions within 50 nautical miles that consume air asset availability.
“The FMA used the 2007 CG Fleet, as defined in the 2007 Modeled CONOPS (Concept of Operations-ed.) and the “Deepwater” POR (Program of Record-ed.) as Baselines for comparative performance and cost analysis.
“ES.5.2 ASSUMPTIONS
“Preliminary Operational Requirements Document (P-ORD) thresholds were used for the OPC (Offshore Patrol Cutter-Chuck).
“The OPC and NSC will operate 230 days away from homeport (DAFHP). No specific crewing method is assumed (i.e., crew rotation concept [CRC]).
“The HC-144A will operate at 800 programmed flight hours (PFH) per year. (This is a reduction from previous assumption–Chuck)
“U.S. Navy out-of-hemisphere (OOH) (2.0 OPC/NSC) and Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF-S) (7.0 OPC/NSC) support was consistent with the FY2010 demand.
“Additional acquisition/next generation platforms have the same capabilities and cost as the FMA Baseline Fleet mix cutters and aircraft (e.g., the next-generation short range recovery (SRR) helicopter is an MH-65C).
“ES.5.3 CONSTRAINTS:
“The High Latitude regions of the ice shelf and Deployable Operations Group (DOG) mission requirements were not considered.
“No specific MDA performance measures have been established to model.
“87-ft coastal patrol boat (CPB), 225-ft seagoing buoy tender (WLB), Department of Defense (DoD)/Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and foreign asset contributions were considered, but force level requirements for 87-ft CPB, 225-ft WLB, DoD/DHS and foreign assets were not assessed.
“Additional shore facilities (e.g., schools, berthing, simulators/training aids, etc.) beyond those directly associated with platforms (e.g., piers, hangars, etc.) are not included in costs.
“”The need for non-operational/shore billet increases commensurate with the projected increases in operational manning was not assessed and is not included in costs.
“All cost estimates are rough order of magnitude (ROM) and are not budget quality.
“Additional specific assumptions utilized for modeling, simulation, and costing are included in their respective chapters of the final report.
“ES.3 Methodology:
“The Fleet Capacity Analysis (FCA) combined information developed in the mission validation phase, the capability definition phase, and a Warfare Analysis Laboratory Exercise (WALEX) to produce an objective Fleet mix and incremental Fleet mix alternatives. To develop the objective Fleet mix, the FMA used three independent teams with unique force projection tools or methodologies – the Database Enhanced Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) IDS Asset Assessment Tool (CIAAT) Model (DECMv2), the Mission Effectiveness Asset Needs Model (MEAN), and a qualitative analysis by a panel of CG SMEs – to develop a force structure that was aligned with MPP capability and capacity targets. Each team applied their methodology using a common set of asset characteristics and mission demands to develop a zero-based force mix (capable of meeting all mission requirements) projection. The results from these independent projections were considered as three “lines of position” (LOPs) and were consolidated to form a conceptual “fix.””
Mk 49 Rolling Airframe Missile Launching System Photo credit: Darkone 13 Aug, 2006, via Wikipedia
My friend contended that, while the Phalanx is very maintenance intensive, the launcher for the RAM is virtually maintenance free, which would benefit the relatively small crew. He also noted that the current models have an excellent anti-surface capability and longer range than the Phalanx.
This got me to thinking. I won’t make a recommendation, but will discuss alternatives that might be considered. I’ll talk about who is using the RAM and how, and discuss how the Coast Guard might use it, and its advantages and disadvantages as a possible replacement for the Phalanx and possibly even the 57 mm. But before we get to that, as we are always told, you have to start with the mission.
Thanks to fiercehomelandsecurity.com, we have a summary of the FY2013 budget request for the Coast Guard. They also provide a link to the full budget justification.
I would like to focus on the AC&I portion and compare and contrast it with the FY 2012 appropriation which we talked about here.
Total AC&I funds go down from $1,463,968,000 to $1,192,309,000, a drop of almost 18%.
In the out years (FY 2014, 2015 and 2016) the AC&I budget is projected to rise above the FY2012 level.
A number of programs are zeroed out in FY 2013, either because they are cancelled, are on hold, or because they are complete. These include “In-service Vessel Sustainment,” Response Boat-Medium, HH-60 conversion projects, Long Range Surveillance Aircraft (C-130H/J), Rescue 21, Inter-agency Operations Centers (IOCs).
AC&I for vessels went up from $642M to $879.5M, but last year did not fund an NSC as this one does. As has been reported the seven and eighth NSC have been removed from the out-year budgets.
The breakdown for “vessels” (cutters, small boats and related equipment) looks like this:
………………………………………………….FY2012………..FY2013
Total for Vessels ……………………………….$642M……….$879.5M
Survey and Design – Vessels & Boats ….$6M ………….$2.5M (175 ft WLM begins)
In Service Vessel Sustainment (ISVS) ….$14M…………..(Restarts FY2014)
Response Boat – Medium (RB-M) ……$110M…………. (Complete)
National Security Cutter (NSC) …………$77M………….$683M
Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) …..………$25M……………$30M
Fast Response Cutter (FRC) …….……$358M………….$139M
Cutter Boats ………………………………$5M…………….$4M
MEC Sustainment ……………………….$47M…………..$13M
Heavy Icebreaker …………………………………………….$8M
Icebreakers:
There is a total of $770M identified for a new icebreaker in FY 2014, 2015, and 2017. Total acquisition cost “TBD.”
“The survey and design phase (for the new icebreaker) would last from the second quarter of fiscal 2013 through the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016, according to the justification.”
Offshore Patrol Vessels:
The $30M is to fund competitive design efforts by up to three short-listed competing ship building organizations. This is expected to be a two step, three year design process beginning after the end of FY 2012, followed by a presumably three to four year construction process to hopefully deliver the first OPC before the end of calender year 2019. Surprisingly the out-years appear to provide for OPC construction at the rate of only one ship per year. Only $360M per year in FY2015 (first ship), 2016, and 2017. If we continue to build OPCs at only one per year it will take until 2043 to build the 25 projected by which time the newest 270 will be 53 years old. 2045 if we build two extra to replace the cancelled NSCs. (That would be truly ridiculous.) Stretching out the production run will inevitably lead to higher unit costs in contrast to the multi-year production contracts the Navy used for the Littoral Combat Ships (two five year contracts with options for up to 10 ships each).
Fast Response Cutters
The cutters are being built at a rate of four per year. Last years budget included funds for six. FY 2013 request funds number 19 and 20, and will keep the line going. FY 2014, 2015, and 2016 go back up to a $360M/year level.
AC&I for aircraft dropped from $354.4M to $74.5M.
Out years are all higher than FY 2012, as purchases of HC-144s are projected to go back up from $43M in FY 2013 to $220M/year for the succeeding three years and a total of $470M is projected for C-130s 2014-2016. Some notes of interest below:
“The LRS program continues efforts to extend the operating life and enhance the capability of the HC-130H fleet by replacing key component Center Wing Boxes (CWBs) and adding new capability (avionics-A1U), permanently defers the second avionics upgrade (A2U), and reduces the scope of the mission systems upgrade in favor of C-130J production. Consolidation of the C-130H and C-130J PPAs into one new LRS Project enables greater flexibility toward achieving an 11H/11J fleet configuration, which is expected to result in increased mission effectiveness and minimizes lifecycle cost. The eventual goal is to transition to an all C-130J fleet by the mid-2020s, when it will no longer be practical or affordable to keep the C-130H in service.”
“The Coast Guard intends to leverage FY 2012 funding initially intended for the H-60 Radar Sensor System for sustainment segments now underway, including life-limiting component recapitalization and replacement of obsolete components. These revised plans will focus resources on sustaining existing capacity and capability.”
Finally:
AC&I for “Shore, Military Housing and Aids to Navigation dropped from approximately $200.7M to 69.4M.
If we could get the Air Force’s nearly new C-27Js in lieu of HC-144s as has been discussed, it might allow us to build a second OPC each year.
(Note most of the cost breakdown information is found on page CG-AC&I-12)
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 