Navy 1.1 (Febraury 3, 2015) by KMI Media Group

Publication

www.npeo-kmi.com

Innovation Deliverer Developing Affordable Innovation that Maximizes Operational Performance

Rear Admiral CJ Jaynes Program Executive Officer for AIR ASW, Assault & Special Mission Programs, PEO(A) Q: Those numbers represent a fairly wide gap. What are the chances that there will be movement to close that gap, or is everyone comfortable enough that this is what you will have to work with?

Q: How do you characterize your current budget in relation to your mission needs? Do you expect your budget to come under any further stresses in the next 12 to 18 months? A: We’ll talk about that from two different perspectives: procurement and sustainment. From a procurement perspective, we’re in pretty good shape. We’re procuring V-22s, P-8s, H-1s and H-60Rs now, with CH-53K and VH-92A coming in the future. We’re well-funded for those programs to keep those procurements going. Where our real budget stress comes is on the sustainment side and the supportability impacts. That’s where we take most of the cuts. For example, for the spares budget in 2015, we’re only funded for 33 percent of the requirements, so two years out there’s going to be a real impact on spares. From an in-service and engineering logistics [standpoint], we’re underfunded by about 50 percent, and that relates directly to fleet readiness. That’s really where we see the most stress on our budget, on that side of the house.

A: For now I think we are where we are. The NAE (Naval Aviation Enterprise) is very aware of what’s happening on the sustainment and fleet readiness side. It’s always safety first, so whatever funding we do get goes to safety first, tech assist and root cause analysis. Then what we’re focused on is a lot of innovation and best practices across the platforms, looking at our sustainment posture in terms of ‘If I have a depot repairable that maybe is currently being performed by an OEM, can I roll that to an organic depot or can I make a depot repairable possibly an I-level repairable and roll back it to the fleet? Or do I have high-cost consumables that cost $100,000 to $150,000 that maybe we can convert to a repairable so that we are not spending precious dollars on high-cost consumables?’ We’re really trying to reduce our own costs wherever we can and keep best business practices and innovation on the forefront of everyone’s mind to mitigate the budget impacts. Q: Are there programs that you’re going to have to put on hold or stretch out in order to manage these funds?

Feb 2015

Coast Guard Modernization A Congressional Research Service report of options for the Coast Guard By Ronald O’Rourke U.S. polar ice operations support nine of the Coast Guard’s 11 statutory missions.1 The roles of U.S. polar icebreakers can be summarized as follows: • conducting and supporting scientific research in the Arctic and Antarctic; • defending U.S. sovereignty in the Arctic by helping to maintain a U.S. presence in U.S. territorial waters in the region; • defending other U.S. interests in polar regions, including economic interests in waters that are within the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) north of Alaska; • monitoring sea traffic in the Arctic, including ships bound for the United States; • conducting other typical Coast Guard missions (such as search and rescue, law enforcement, and protection of marine resources) in Arctic waters, including U.S. territorial waters north of Alaska. Operations to support National Science Foundation (NSF) research activities in the Arctic and Antarctic have accounted in the past for a significant portion of U.S. polar icebreaker operations.2 Supporting NSF research in the Antarctic has included performing an annual mission, called Operation Deep Freeze, to break through the Antarctic ice so as to resupply McMurdo Station, the large U.S. Antarctic research station located on the shore of McMurdo Sound, near the Ross Ice Shelf. Although polar ice is diminishing due to climate change, observers generally expect that this development will not eliminate the

Continued On pAGE 8 ➥ Continued On pAGE 11 ➥

www.npeo-kmi.com

February 3, 2015

s in e ud s n cl n io In fe at De ov n in

Plus: • Latest Contract Awards • Chinese Land Carrier

Table of Contents Editorial Editor

Innovation Deliverer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Coast Guard Modernization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Jeff McKaughan jeffm@kmimediagroup.com

Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Managing Editor

Harrison Donnelly harrisond@kmimediagroup.com

Submariner Fatigue-Based Scheduling Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Copy Editors

Shipbuilder Acquires UUV Design Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Crystal Jones crystalj@kmimediagroup.com Jonathan Magin jonathanm@kmimediagroup.com Correspondents

J.B. Bissell • Kasey Chisholm • Catherine Day Michael Frigand • Nora McGann

Art & Design Art Director

Jennifer Owers jennifero@kmimediagroup.com Ads and Materials Manager

Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 ONR’s Electromagnetic Railgun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 USS Rodney M. Davis Decommissioned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Tomahawk Block 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Carrier On Land—The Chinese Explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Jittima Saiwongnuan jittimas@kmimediagroup.com

Navy Tactical Jammer Sustainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Senior Graphic Designer

Strike Group Defender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Graphic Designers

Defense Innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Scott Morris scottm@kmimediagroup.com Andrea Herrera andreah@kmimediagroup.com Amanda Paquette amandak@kmimediagroup.com

KMI Media Group Chief Executive Officer

Jack Kerrigan jack@kmimediagroup.com Publisher and Chief Financial Officer

Constance Kerrigan connik@kmimediagroup.com Editor-In-Chief

Jeff McKaughan jeffm@kmimediagroup.com Controller

Gigi Castro gcastro@kmimediagroup.com Trade Show Coordinator

Holly Foster hollyf@kmimediagroup.com

Operations, Circulation & Production

Low-Profile Cargo Handling System

Detecting Structural Changes to underwater Structures

Underwater Vehicle Simulation

Fuze Safing System

Underwater Laser-Guided Discharge

Air-Ground Detection System for Semi-Levered Landing Gear

Autonomous Rotor System

Self-Guidance of Small-Sized Missile to target

Aircraft Health Monitoring System Beetle Craft—Aircraft with Flapping Wings Precision Landing of Unmanned Aerial Systems

Reducing Operational power and Weight of an Unmanned Aerial Device’s Payload

Operations Administrator

Bob Lesser bobl@kmimediagroup.com Circulation & Marketing Administrator

Duane Ebanks duanee@kmimediagroup.com Circulation

Denise Woods denisew@kmimediagroup.com

Subscription Information

Corporate Offices

KMI Media Group 15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300 Rockville, MD 20855-2604 USA Telephone: (301) 670-5700 Fax: (301) 670-5701 Web: www.NPEO-kmi.com

February 3, 2015

Calendar of Events February 10-12, 2015 AFCEA West San Diego, Calif. www.afcea.org/events/west

March 18, 2015 Special Topics Breakfast Speaker: Sean J. Stackley Arlington, Va. www.navyleague.org

March 4-5, 2015 ASNE Day Arlington, Va. www.sname.org

March 30-April 1, 2015 Joint Undersea Warfare Technology San Diego, Calif. www.ndia.org/meetings/5260

March 17-18, 2015 Precision Strike Forum Springfield, Va. www.precisionstrike.org

April 2, 2015 Coast Guard Intelligence Industry Day Chantilly, Va. www.afcea.org

www.npeo-kmi.com

Submariner Fatigue-Based Scheduling Tool The Naval Medical Logistics Command (NMLC) is seeking sources to perform a research and development (R&D) project in support of the Naval Medical Research Center (NMRC), Silver Spring, Md. The research project will fulfill a critical need to provide a validated submarine based scheduling tool for incorporation into the Non-Tactical Data Processing System (NTDPS) within Virginiaclass submarines. The validated submarine based fatiguebased scheduling tool is a follow on effort performed by Pulsar Informatics, Inc., and funded by both the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the Advanced Medical Development (AMD) Program. Pulsar Informatics is the only company that has integrated submarine-specific operational challenges and directly addressed the needs of submarine operations. No other examples exist that have addressed the impacts of interrupted sleep and rapidly changing operational tempo for watchbill generation for submarine crews, an entirely novel and particularly challenging problem for the submarine force.

Pulsar is the only entity to have conducted the prior ONR and AMD funded effort, which successfully created a proof of concept software architecture to 1) monitor submariner training qualifications; 2) track individual watchstander work/rest cycles; 3) integrate information from watch sections to design “watchbills” comprising multiple watch sections; and, 4) optimize submarine crew schedules by providing fatigue countermeasures and real-time capability to immediately adjust rescheduling of watchbills. The two main objectives of the anticipated project are to: (1) transition and perform a knowledge transfer of the submarine-specific scheduling system into the new Virginia-class NTDPS system (named NOSIS); and (2) create a fatigue assessment component and fatigue meter dashboard for the Pulsar stand-alone software tool. In addition to the primary two tasks, a final field evaluation, validation and fine tuning of the software product will be required prior to implementation. Pulsar created a U.S. Navy submarinespecific scheduling and fatigue system as one

previously did not exist. This submarinespecific tool captures individualized fatiguebased scheduling that can scale up from the individual watch-stander at the watch station to the watch sections’ integration of fatigue. Their efforts have culminated in a stand alone software tool. It is the only tool that includes watch station breakdown, along with watch section integration of the information. In this system, fatigue components are based on individual submariners, which makes it the only software on the market that has accounted for submarine watch-stander positions while providing the ability to build and redesign watch schedules in real time. Additionally, Pulsar has produced the only submarine-specific scheduling and fatigue mitigation software. All these points indicate that Pulsar is qualified and has the capability to perform the work successfully. If capable sources are not identified through this notice, then NMLC intends to award a sole-source contract under the authority of FAR 6.302-1 to Pulsar Informatics, Inc.

Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center Support DynCorp International (DI) has been awarded a task order on a contract from the Naval Air Systems Command to provide aircraft maintenance and logistics support for aircraft assigned to the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center in Fallon, Nev. “This contract award continues to significantly expand our work with the Navy, building on another recent contract award to support T-34, T-44 and T-6 aircraft,” said James Myles, DynAviation senior vice president, DynCorp International. “Our DynAviation team is honored to have the opportunity to serve the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center and continue to develop a strong relationship with this customer.” DI team members will provide organizational, selected intermediate and limited depot-level maintenance and logistics services in support of 44 aircraft, including the F/A-18A-F, EA-18G, MH-60S, F-16A/B and E-2 C. The competitively-awarded, firm-fixed-price task order has a oneyear period of performance and is valued at up to $44.5 million. The

www.npeo-kmi.com

indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract vehicle has a five-year period of performance, cumulatively, with a total potential value of $93.3 million.

February 3, 2015

Shipbuilder Acquires UUV Design Firm Huntington Ingalls Industries has acquired the Engineering Solutions Division (ESD) of The Columbia Group, a leading designer and builder of unmanned underwater vehicles for domestic and international customers. The value of the transaction is not being disclosed. As a previous stand-alone division within The Columbia Group, ESD is headquartered in Panama City Beach, Fla., and employs about 30 engineers, analysts, craftsmen and technicians. While ESD’s primary customer is the U.S. Navy, the company develops and builds specialized manned and unmanned undersea vehicles for military customers around the world. It has built or converted specialized craft for a variety of purposes, including support of submersibles and submarines, special warfare, testing of mine warfare systems, torpedo countermeasures and more. “ESD’s experience in designing and developing manned and unmanned submersibles is a natural extension of the submarine work we do at Newport News Shipbuilding,” said Matt Mulherin, HII corporate

vice president and Newport News Shipbuilding president. “We believe the combination of Newport News and ESD expertise will enable us to compete successfully in the unmanned underwater vehicle market, and we are excited to welcome ESD to our team.” ESD will operate as Undersea Solutions Group, a subsidiary of HII, and will report to Newport News Shipbuilding’s Submarine and Fleet Support division. “As the Navy moves toward greater employment of unmanned vehicles in both the surface and undersea domains, it makes great strategic sense to bring together a builder of unmanned undersea vehicles and one of the world’s great builders of naval ships and submarines,” said Ross Lindman, ESD senior vice president. “Together, we can support the development of large and very large unmanned undersea vehicles and stay in step with the Navy as unmanned systems take on greater and more complex roles in the undersea battle space. The staff of ESD looks forward to joining Newport News Shipbuilding.”

Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel

Leidos’ prototype maritime autonomy system for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)’s Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV) program recently completed its first self-guided voyage between Gulfport and Pascagoula, Miss. The prototype maritime autonomy system was installed on a 42-foot work boat that served as a surrogate vessel to test sensor, maneuvering and mission functions of the prototype ACTUV vessel. ACTUV seeks to develop an independently

February 3, 2015

deployed, unmanned naval vessel that would operate under sparse remote supervisory control and safely follow the collision avoidance “rules of the sea” known as COLREGS. Controlled only by the autonomy system, and with only a navigational chart of the area loaded into its memory and inputs from its commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) radars, the surrogate vessel successfully sailed the complicated inshore environment of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. During its voyage of 35 nautical miles, the maritime autonomy

system functioned as designed. The boat avoided all obstacles, buoys, land, shoal water and other vessels in the area—all without any preplanned waypoints or human intervention. While Leidos continues to use the surrogate vessel to test ACTUV software and sensors, the company is continuing construction of Sea Hunter, the first ACTUV prototype vessel, in Clackamas, Ore. Sea Hunter is scheduled to launch in late fall 2015 and begin testing in the Columbia River shortly thereafter.

www.npeo-kmi.com

ONR’s Electromagnetic Railgun The Office of Naval Research’s electromagnetic (EM) railgun program is among several disruptive capabilities that the Naval Research Enterprise is championing as a revolutionary technology for the U.S. Navy. According to ONR, the railgun program continues to move swiftly toward scheduled at-sea testing in 2016. The foundational concept relies on electricity instead of traditional chemical propellants, with magnetic fields created by high electrical currents launching projectiles at distances over 100 nautical miles—and at speeds that exceed Mach 6, or six times the speed of sound. That velocity allows the weapon’s projectiles to rely on kinetic energy for maximum effect, and reduces the amount of high explosives needed to be carried on ships. It also minimizes the dangers of unexploded ordnance remaining on the battlefield. “The EM railgun is a revolutionary advancement in naval gun technology that provides a cost affordable solution to costly challenges and developmental success is enabling rapid progress toward at-sea and land-based demonstrations,” said Roger Ellis, Office of Naval Research, EM railgun program manager. Funding moves the program forward to at-sea testing in 2016. “In 2016, the at-sea aboard a U.S. Navy joint high speed vessel, a ship designed to transport 600 short tons of military cargo,”

www.npeo-kmi.com

explained Commander Jason Fox, Naval Sea Systems Command, assistant program manager for ship integration and testing. “We’ve been examining potential ship options since the beginning of the effort and have conducted several in-depth feasibility studies with a variety of ships in the U.S. inventory; no final decisions have been made.” “Other key demonstrations are planned to prove technology with a launcher and power technology demonstration at a tactical firing rate in 2017 and sea and land based system demonstrations including projectile and fire control in 2019, explained Fox.

“Previous development successfully demonstrated the appropriate railgun size and energy that will be necessary for the naval mission, Ellis noted. “Current Navy S&T technology efforts are concentrating on demonstrating a repetition rate fire capability. Thermal management techniques and technologies required for sustained firing rates are being developed for both the launcher system and the pulsed power system.” The EM railgun program will be one of ONR’s focus demonstrations at its annual S&T Expo February 4-5 in Washington, D.C.

February 3, 2015

USS Rodney M. Davis Decommissioned By Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Justin Johndro, Navy Public Affairs Support Element Det. Northwest Sailors and guests bade farewell to the Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided-missile frigate USS Rodney M. Davis as the ship concluded 28 years of naval service during a decommissioning ceremony on Naval Station Everett (NSE), Wash., January 23. Retired Commander Craig R. Heckert, the first commanding officer of Rodney M. Davis and Captain William M. Triplett, former commander of Destroyer Squadron 9 were guest speakers for the decommissioning. Several former crew members, plank owners, friends and family also attended. Rodney M. Davis’ last commanding officer, Commander Todd Whalen kicked off the ceremony and put into context the ship’s place in the history of the Navy during her time in service. “I think I can speak for the 16 commanding officers that followed in Commander Heckert’s footsteps and tell you we’ve strived to continue the tradition of excellence that you and your fellow plankowners started on Rodney M. Davis almost 28 years ago,” said Whalen. The decommissioning ceremony, a timehonored naval tradition, retires a ship from service through a variety of ceremonial observances, including the department heads’ final reports, lowering of the ship’s commissioning pennant and sailors walking off the ship while a bugler plays “Taps.” The ceremony is meant to pay respect to the ship and the sailors who have served in her over decades of honorable service. According to Heckert, walking down the pier felt like walking through a time warp,

except everything was the same. “As I walked down this pier, nothing has changed,” said Heckert. “Although the ship will be decommissioning, the heroism and dedication [of the namesake] Rodney Maxwell Davis will forever be remembered.” Rodney M. Davis was assigned to Destroyer Squadron 9. In December, the ship returned from her last deployment to the western Pacific and Indian Oceans. During the six-month deployment, the ship and crew of more than 200 sailors conducted presence operations and theater security cooperation with partner nations in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. “Every one of these sailors, past and present, made the personal sacrifices every day to protect our families, our friends and our countrymen,” said Whalen. “It has been my privilege to serve alongside of them.” “Today there are 325,000 sailors and 287 ships in the Navy and 197 of those sailors are standing the watch on Rodney M. Davis,” he said. “So what do we honor the memory of Rodney M. Davis? We do what every sailor has done for the last 28 years. We work together; we prepare the ship for sustained combat operations at sea; and we do everything we can to make the ship the best it can be.” For Triplett, the ceremony was a new experience, as the Navy was saying goodbye to the final frigate stationed at NSE. “Those who sailed with Rodney M. Davis will forever be linked and will always be a part of making history,” said Triplett. They served our nation unselfishly like their namesake. This

is the end of the frigate era here in Everett.” Rodney M. Davis was commissioned May 9, 1987, at Naval Station Long Beach as the 54th Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate. She was named for Marine Sergeant Rodney M. Davis, who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroism in the Vietnam War. In honor of his service, Rodney M. Davis’ daughter, Samantha Steen, traveled from Miami to attend the ceremony and received the honor of retiring the ship’s colors. “It was an emotional and honorable experience,” said Steen. “I know my father would’ve been proud of the accomplishments that this ship did in his name.” Rodney M. Davis is scheduled to be transferred for dismantlement March 31.

Tomahawk Block 13 NAVAIR has announced its intention to negotiate and award a contract for Full Rate Production 13 Tomahawk Block IV All-Up-Round (AUR) missiles. The anticipated contract will be for one year. Contract award is anticipated for the third quarter fiscal year 2016. This requirement may include the hardware manufacture of canistered surface ship capable, encapsulated submarine torpedo-tube launched, and encapsulated submarine vertical launch Tomahawk Block IV AUR missiles and related hardware/equipment and services. In addition to other related items/ services, this may include manufacture of composite capsule launching systems (CCLS) capsules and SSGN-compatible CCLS retrofit kits; MK 10 canisters; and other accessories.

February 3, 2015

www.npeo-kmi.com

Carrier On Land— The Chinese Explanation Article from China Military Online A Google Maps satellite photo considered to be showing a Chinese carrier on land has aroused heated discussions among military fans on the Internet in China on January 21, 2015. Chinese media released clearer photos of a carrier on land years ago. Foreign media also intensively hyped the verified purpose of this “carrier on land.” Chinese military experts believed that though the real purpose of this “carrier on land” could not be determined yet, the tests conducted by China for some equipment before it is installed onto ships are quite normal, whether China is reconstructing its Liaoning aircraft carrier or building a new homemade aircraft carrier. Since the Liaoning warship has been made public for so many years, there is no need to over-interpret this “carrier on land.” Arousing More Hype An updated Google Earth satellite photo shows a huge building suspected of being an aircraft carrier and a model building suspected to be a large surface warship somewhere in central China. The distance measurement tool indicates that this suspected carrier on land is about 300 meters long and 80 meters wide, and the deck of the aircraft carrier contains a suspected carrier-borne aircraft J-15. This is widely regarded as a same-size model of an aircraft carrier. The large surface ship at the bottom right of the photo is considered as the model of the superstructure of China’s 055 destroyer. In fact, the clear photo of this carrier on land had appeared in Chinese media before. Chinese media went to the new district for the China Ship Design and Research Center located in Wuhan in October 2009 to photograph the building for the carrier on land. The released clear photo shows that the carrier model is exquisitely made. The deck and superstructure, in particular, look almost the same as those of a real carrier. The carrier on land uses the gray coating of the Navy of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLAN). A fully-sealed mast structure is built above the ship’s island, with phased-array radars mounted. In addition, one phased-array radar is mounted respectively on the left sides behind and in front of the ship’s island. The photo then also shows a large helicopter and a suspected samesize model of J-15 on the deck of the carrier on land. Chinese “netizens” believed that this shows that “the builder intends to build a carrier test platform.” What’s the Purpose Foreign media had intensively reported the carriers on land in China years ago. Russia’s Izvestia reported in November 2009 that the news about China’s building of “carriers on land” had “startled Russian Navy,” and some experts believed that “China is attempting to use models on land to help improve its design of real carriers.” The report claimed that Andrei Chang, editor in chief of Canada’s Kanwa Defense Review, said in an interview with ITAR-TASS that the carrier on land appearing in Wuhan is completely modeled based on Russian Navy’s operational carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, and is “almost a same-size clone.” Andrei Chang said that the carrier building appearing in the new district

www.npeo-kmi.com

for the China Ship Design and Research Center in Wuhan has copied in full scale the “ship islands” of Admiral Kuznetsov and Varyag, and is an exactcopy version of the carrier facility. He further explained that during construction of the carrier, the PLAN has to consider many tiny technical differences. The complicated calculation of the size of the “ship island” cabin and the installation and debugging of radars and electronic devices, in particular, as well as laying of internal cables for different purposes, all require tests on a same-size model. Andrei Chang believed that the above work makes it necessary to build a carrier on land as the test platform. He also stressed that the No. 701 Research Institute located in Wuhan should be the general design unit for China’s first-generation aircraft carriers. Japan’s Sankei Shimbun reported that the completed carrier on land in Wuhan may imply that the development speed of China’s aircraft carriers has far exceeded what the public has estimated, meaning that China has entered the final stage of engineering design from the conceptual design stage, and its supporting subsystems for aircraft carriers have entered the actual test stage. As it is impossible to test all the subsystems on the carrier on land in Wuhan, China may have built similar platforms in other places so as to test the sonar, power and ship-borne weapons of the aircraft carrier. No Need to Over-Interpret China’s carrier on land recently exposed by the Google Earth photo is not new. The only difference is that a suspected model of 055 is added beside the carrier on land. An unnamed Chinese military expert said that to look at the matter from a military angle, an architectural model of carrier on land may help designers understand the carrier’s deck and hangar space and cubic capacity, and facilitate a visual impression. However, this effect is being weakened. The current three-dimensional design technology on the computer may create a three-dimensional image on the computer, and designers may view it from 360 degrees. An on-land model of the warship helps test some equipment, such as radars, electro-optical systems, communicators and radomes, and conduct the key EMC verification. In foreign countries, on-land tests will also be conducted when the ship-borne equipment is tested, especially when the electromagnetic compatibility test is conducted. This expert said that the specific use of these two warship models remains to be publicized. The media of western countries had also mistaken a cement carrier located in the suburb of Shanghai for a carrier on land with military use. Actually, it was a military theme park built by the Amusement Equipment Co., Ltd.

February 3, 2015

Q&A with Rear Admiral CJ Jaynes ➥ Continued From pAGE 1 A: One in particular is the CH-53K procurement side of the house. The development has proceeded; we haven’t really been hurt on the engineering, manufacturing and development side. But we’ve actually had to delay procurement by a year due to PB15. That’s going to result in a 22 aircraft reduction to the original production ramp through fiscal year 2020. It’s still a 200 aircraft program of record; it’s just going to take a lot longer to get there. Q: What are you doing at the PEO to streamline the acquisition process to make it more responsive and adaptive? A: Trying to actually influence the process put in place by the PPBE (planning, programming, budgeting and execution) is rather difficult. So we attack the acquisition process from different perspectives. We’re trying to do a rapid acquisition process. We have a couple of things that go on within that. For example, we have an Airworks group that tries to take capability and quickly deploy it to the fleet. In some cases we do demos. For us, specifically, I have a digital interoperability demo going on for the V-22 and the H-53 Echo. That means that we’re taking a small subset of aircraft and outfitting them under a risk reduction effort for a net-ready KPP (key performance parameters). We’re sending a small number of V-22s and H-53s out with the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit outfitted for the demo, deploying in 2015. It’s really about making sure that the platforms can interoperate between multiple waveforms. When you talk about Link 16, tactical targeting network technology (TTNT), and SATCOM, for example, we’re hoping that the data we get from the demo will give us enough information to move forward with a program of record in the future. Basically, how we go after acquisition streamlining is demo it and prove it, which gives us our system—or at least a skeleton of the system—in place so we can move forward. Q: Let’s turn to the P-8 for a minute. Were there any lessons learned from the deployments of the P-8s when it was deployed in support of the Malaysian airliner or in cases

February 3, 2015

Rear Admiral CJ Jaynes is serving as Program Executive Officer for Air Anti-Submarine Warfare, Assault and Special Mission Programs (PEO(A)). She has oversight responsibility for nine program offices and seven ACAT I major acquisition programs. Jaynes graduated from Indiana University of Pennsylvania in 1979 with a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics education, followed by a master’s degree in mathematics in 1982. She was commissioned in March 1983 via the Officer Candidate School in Newport, R.I., and was designated an aeronautical engineering (maintenance) duty officer in 1985. She was designated an Acquisition Professional Community member in 1996 and received a master’s in business administration from Norwich University in 2008. Jaynes also completed the Naval War College Command and Staff (non-resident) program in 1995, and earned a Systems Engineering Certification from California Institute of Technology Industrial Relations Center in 1999. Her awards include the Legion of Merit (three), Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal (four), Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal (with Service Star), Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and numerous unit awards. She is authorized to wear the Professional Aviation Maintenance Officer Warfare insignia.

with anything else in that program that you were using as a model to move forward? A: The P-8 exceeded all expectations during that first deployment to the western Pacific. They had historical performance and mission completion rates and on-time take-off rates; the number of in-flight aborts was almost zero. It offered true persistence at long range. In the case of the Malaysian airliner search, we were able to stay on target for longer periods of time. It has the transit speed to get on station and the endurance to stay out there longer. The aircraft performed admirably. We also had the ALQ-240, the electronic support measure system that extended the tactical surveillance range of the P-8, so aircrews were able to quickly locate surface contacts in a dense maritime environment in the western Pacific. All that played into the success that the P-8 had while it was out there. Q: What would the CH-53K bring to the fight? What will it provide to the mission that’s not there now? A: There is capability that the CH-53K brings to the fight that we currently don’t have. To start with, it’s a completely new-build helicopter and it will be the only shipboardcompatible helicopter that can lift 100 percent of the Marine Corps’ vertical lift equipment. It will lift approximately 15 tons, or 27,000

pounds, at a mission range of 110 nautical miles in high/hot environments. That’s really going to be a game changer for the Marine Corps. It will be able to transport two up-armored HMMWVs or a light-armored vehicle variant under high/hot conditions, which they cannot do now. The cabin is 12 inches wider than the Echo. It has an internal cargo handling system, so it’s going to be able to carry more cargo than the current H-53. In general, it will change the way the Marines are able to move equipment. Q: The CV-22/MV-22 is a platform coming into its own. Based on its speed, range and other inherent features, are there other missions within your portfolio that you think this aircraft can perform? A: We are moving forward with the refueling capability where it can become a tanker per se. There is money in the budget right now to move out with that NRE. It would allow the Marines to refuel themselves. If you are in a tanker configuration, you lose the ability to put troops in the back at the same time, so during that time it has to be one or the other. The aircraft is already past the 250,000 flight hour mark, which is only 6 percent of its life, so we have a lot of time left with it. The aircraft has performed a number of humanitarian relief missions and is very capable

www.npeo-kmi.com

in the rescue and extraction role—it played a key role in what we did in Sudan in 2013. Q: In early 2014, Australia took delivery of a couple MH-60Rs. In the past, you’ve called the platform a game changer. What makes it so? A: We’ll talk a little bit about the allies first. Just having common platforms and missions and being able to work together in a robust and dynamic environment is critical to our success when working with our allies. The fact that Australia will be flying that platform benefits us when we’re in that geographic area. As far as the ASW capability of the Romeo, it brings a robust capability that we haven’t had with the H-60s before. Whether in open oceans or littoral water environments—it operates in both. It has non-acoustic area search capability. It provides the LCS with a significant ASW capability when the LCS is modularized for that platform. We have command and control with other air and surface platforms, as well as ASW search and interdiction platforms. The airborne low frequency sonar (ALFS), a multimode radar which gives us mast and periscope detection, and common data link all enhance the capability of the Romeo. Those are just a few of the capabilities that we have not had before with the H-60 series, so the Romeo has really become a multimission platform. The H-60 is going to play a major role in the ASW Integrated Warfare arena as well. It is a part of the airborne ASW systems program office, an integrated warfighting capability group which includes the H-60, P-8 and PMA264. We also pull in the LCS program and the submarine community together to really attack the challenges that we face. Q: You seem to have a great deal of interest in promoting STEM programs, especially in making sure that people understand the opportunities in science, technology, engineering and math. Tell me about the STEM initiatives that you’re promoting. A: The best place to get kids interested in STEM is to start out when they’re in middle school. I have spent a great deal of time mentoring the young girls in Saint Mary’s County (Maryland) because they seem to be shying away from the

www.npeo-kmi.com

sciences and engineering. I worked with several groups, including Wow That’s Engineering and Expanding Your Horizons, to put on a STEM event at Saint Mary’s College in Maryland. These outreach programs do hands-on workshops with middle school girls. We bring professionals from the base and the community together to inspire the young students not to shy away from STEM. There is something out there for everyone. I’m also involved with one of the local high schools that has a club called Girls Who Dare to Be Geeks. I’ve spoken with them and spent time answering their concerns about the future. Those young ladies are already convinced that they are going to go into one of the STEM fields, so it’s more about mentoring and talking to them about what their opportunities are. I participated in Navy Week in Pittsburgh two years running, where we’ve gone to the Carnegie Science Center and kicked off the

STEM Week there, and talked to the teachers in the Pittsburgh area about technical careers not only within the military but within the Navy civil service as well. I do whatever I possibly can to reach out and promote what we’re offering in the Navy. Q: Any closing thoughts? A: This is a great time to be a PEO. The challenges are bountiful, and it’s a time when everyone has to step up their game. The way that the men and women in my PMAs are still able to bring innovation to the warfighter and meet the warfighter’s needs is truly incredible considering the fiscal constraints that they’re under. I think I’m one of the luckiest people around to have the job that I have and to be surrounded by the talented and extremely professional staff and program teams.

February 3, 2015

Navy Tactical Jammer Sustainment Exelis has received a U.S. Naval Surface Warfare Center contract valued at $15.3 million to perform essential sustainment work on the ALQ-99 tactical jamming system. The ALQ-99 is used on the Navy’s EA-6B Prowler and EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft. The technology will also be provided to the Australian government through a Foreign Military Sales program, the first time the ALQ-99 has been made available to an international ally. Under the contract, Exelis will redesign three modules—components of the ALQ-99’s universal exciter upgrade shop-replaceable assembly—to extend the service life of the Navy’s principal standoff jammer. As part of the redesign, Exelis will replace legacy application-specific electronic components with modern field-programmable technology, enhancing reliability and the system’s ability to adapt to changing mission needs. The work will also include extensive qualification testing to ensure that the aircraft can operate successfully in challenging environments. “The ALQ-99 is expected to continue supporting the Navy’s electronic attack mission for several years until a next-generation solution is fielded,” said Mitch Friedman, vice president and general manager of the Exelis integrated electronic warfare systems business. “This critical interim support will equip the system to handle the evolving threat landscape and allow U.S. and allied forces to continue dominating the electromagnetic spectrum.” For the first time, this contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy and the government of Australia through a Department of Defense Foreign Military Sales program. Work is expected to be completed by June 2017.

February 3, 2015

Strike Group Defender Serious gaming for serious training. By Eric Beidel Missiles are launched at a Navy ship, and sailors must decide in a matter of seconds how to keep from getting hit. Strike Group Defender: The Missile Matrix prepares sailors for exactly this scenario, and was named “Best Government-Developed Serious Game” in the Serious Games Showcase and Challenge at the simulation and training industry’s premier event last month: the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ ITSEC) in Orlando, Fla. Strike Group Defender is a virtual “demo space” developed as part of the Office of Naval Research Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Future Naval Capabilities (FNC) portfolio managed by PMR-51. It exposes Navy planners, tacticians and operators to different missiles and the best ways to counter them, either through electronic means (soft kill) or with traditional firepower (hard kill). It is the Navy’s first multiplayer, game-based training program to test and evaluate personnel in surface electronic warfare. “Strike Group Defender is an affordable, realistic way for personnel to understand and emulate the capabilities being developed in the IAMD FNC’s and learn how those improvements enhance the means to respond to threats Navy ships face around the world,” said Scott Orosz, ONR program manager. “But beyond that application, this technology will allow sailors and Marines to plan, experiment and train whenever they want, whether they are at sea or in a classroom.” More than ever, Navy and Marine Corps leaders are treating the electromagnetic spectrum like a true battle domain, as important as land, sea, air and space. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert’s navigation plan specifically calls for improving the ability of forces to detect and defeat adversary radars and anti-ship missiles-tasks at the heart of Strike Group Defender. ONR worked with MIT Lincoln Laboratory and serious games experts

Metateq and PipeWorks Studios to develop the game, and received assistance from the Naval Postgraduate School and ONR’s own TechSolutions Program, among others. “While the current content focuses on anti-ship missile defense tactics and training, the larger value of Strike Group Defender is an underlying ‘ecosystem’ of technologies that we have not yet seen in the Navy,” said Perry McDowell, research associate at the Naval Postgraduate School. This includes a powerful combination of analytics, crowdsourcing, social media and cloud technology that are attractive to the current generation of sailors and Marines. This allows for easy collaboration across the Navy and for an even more engaging playing experience. That experience may begin with a screen depicting incoming threats. In one example, a warning states that a missile is 20 seconds from impact. The “missile matrix” gives users a rundown of different missiles, their locations and how best to defeat them. It then gives specific recommendations, such as using decoy flares to distract an infrared-tracking missile that is not susceptible to radar jamming. At the end of a session, the game shows them the missiles they hit and the ones they missed. The game already has received high marks in tests, with nearly 30 units aboard ships. The Naval Postgraduate School and MIT are now studying players’ analytic data to make improvements. Meanwhile, various U.S. Navy fleets and commands are continuing to test and evaluate Strike Group Defender. Experts will be on hand to discuss a range of ONR training technologies at the Naval Future Force Science and Technology EXPO in Washington, D.C., on February 4-5. Eric Beidel is a contractor for ONR Corporate Strategic Communications.

www.npeo-kmi.com

Coast Guard Modernization ➥ Continued From pAGE 1 need for U.S. polar icebreakers, and in some respects might increase mission demands for them. Even with the diminishment of polar ice, there are still significant ice-covered areas in the polar regions. Diminishment of polar ice could lead in coming years to increased commercial ship, cruise ship and naval surface ship operations, as well as increased exploration for oil and other resources, in the Arctic—activities that could require increased levels of support from polar icebreakers.3 Changing ice conditions in Antarctic waters have made the McMurdo resupply mission more challenging since 2000.4 An April 18, 2011 press report states that the commandant of the Coast Guard at the time, Admiral Robert Papp, sees plenty of reasons the United States will need polar icebreakers for the “foreseeable future,” despite speculation that thinning ice in the Arctic could make the icebreakers replaceable with other ice-hardened ships, the admiral said last week…. “I don’t see that causing us to back down on some minimal level of polar icebreakers,” Papp told Inside the Navy. “The fact of the matter is, there’s still winter ice that’s forming [each year]. It’s coming down pretty far. We don’t need to get up there just during summer months when there’s open water.”5 The Coast Guard’s strategy document for the Arctic region, released on May 21, 2013, states that “the United States must have adequate icebreaking capability to support research that advances fundamental understanding of the region and its evolution,” and that “the nation must also make a strategic investment in icebreaking capability to enable access to the high latitudes over the long term.”6 Current U.S. Polar Icebreakers The U.S. polar icebreaker fleet currently includes four ships—three Coast Guard ships and one ship operated by the NSF. The ships are described briefly below.

This Congressional Research Office report provides background information and issues for Congress on the sustainment and modernization of the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet, which performs a variety of missions supporting U.S. interests in polar regions. The Coast Guard’s proposed fiscal year 2015 budget requests $6 million to continue initial acquisition activities for a new polar icebreaker. The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject or modify Coast Guard plans for sustaining and modernizing its polar icebreaking fleet. Congressional decisions on this issue could affect Coast Guard funding requirements, the Coast Guard’s ability to perform its polar missions, and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base. through ice up to 6 feet thick at a speed of 3 knots. Because of their icebreaking capability, they are considered heavy polar icebreakers. In addition to a crew of 134, each ship can embark a scientific research staff of 32 people. Polar Star was commissioned into service on January 19, 1976, and consequently is now several years beyond its intended 30-year service life. Due to worn-out electric motors and other problems, the Coast Guard placed the ship in caretaker status on July 1, 2006.9 Congress in FY09 and FY10 provided funding to repair Polar Star and return it to service for seven to 10 years; the repair work, which reportedly cost about $57 million, was completed, and the ship was reactivated on December 14, 2012.10 The ship completed ice trials in the Arctic in June and July of 2013, was certified as mission ready in November 2013, and departed Seattle in December 2013 for deployment to Antarctica at the request of the NSF in support of the annual McMurdo resupply operation (a.k.a. Operation Deep Freeze).11 Although the repair work on the ship was intended to give it another seven to 10 years of service, an August 30, 2010, press report quoted then-commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, as saying, “We’re getting her back into service, but it’s

Three Coast Guard Ships The Coast Guard’s three polar icebreakers are multimission ships that can break through ice, support scientific research operations and perform other missions typically performed by Coast Guard ships. Heavy Polar Icebreakers Polar Star and Polar Sea Polar Star (WAGB-10) and Polar Sea (WAGB-11),7 sister ships built to the same general design, were procured in the early 1970s as replacements for earlier U.S. icebreakers. They were designed for 30-year service lives, and were built by Lockheed Shipbuilding of Seattle, Wash., a division of Lockheed that also built ships for the U.S. Navy, but exited the shipbuilding business in the late 1980s. The ships are 399 feet long and displace about 13,200 tons.8 They are among the world’s most powerful nonnuclear-powered icebreakers, with a capability to break

www.npeo-kmi.com

February 3, 2015

a little uncertain to me how many more years we can get out of her in her current condition, even after we do the engine repairs.”12 Polar Sea was commissioned into service on February 23, 1978, and consequently is also beyond its originally intended 30-year service life. In 2006, the Coast Guard completed a rehabilitation project that extended the ship’s expected service life to 2014. On June 25, 2010, however, the Coast Guard announced that Polar Sea had suffered an unexpected engine casualty, and the ship was unavailable for operation after that.13 The Coast Guard placed Polar Sea in commissioned, inactive status on October 14, 2011. The Coast Guard transferred certain major equipment from Polar Sea to Polar Star to facilitate Polar Star’s return to service.14 Section 222 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (H.R. 2838/P.L. 112-213 of December 20, 2012) prohibited the Coast Guard from removing any part of Polar Sea and from transferring, relinquishing ownership of, dismantling or recycling the ship until it submitted a business case analysis of the options for and costs of reactivating the ship and extending its service life to at least September 30, 2022, so as to maintain U.S. polar icebreaking capabilities and fulfill the Coast Guard’s high-latitude mission needs, as identified in the Coast Guard’s July 2010 High Latitude Study. (The business case analysis was submitted to Congress with a cover date of November 7, 2013.) Medium Polar Icebreaker Healy Healy (WAGB-20) was procured in the early 1990s as a complement to Polar Star and Polar Sea, and was commissioned into service on August 21, 2000. The ship was built by Avondale Industries, a shipyard located near New Orleans, La., that built numerous Coast Guard and

Navy ships, and which now forms part of Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII).15 Healy is a bit larger than Polar Star and Polar Sea—it is 420 feet long and displaces about 16,000 tons. Compared to Polar Star and Polar Sea, Healy has less icebreaking capability (it is considered a medium polar icebreaker), but more capability for supporting scientific research. The ship can break through ice up to 4½ feet thick at a speed of 3 knots, and embark a scientific research staff of 35 (with room for another 15 surge personnel and two visitors). The ship is used primarily for supporting scientific research in the Arctic. One National Science Foundation Ship The nation’s fourth polar icebreaker is Nathaniel B. Palmer, which was built for the NSF in 1992 by North American Shipbuilding, of Larose, La. The ship, called Palmer for short, is owned by Offshore Service Vessels LLC, operated by Edison Chouest Offshore (ECO) of Galliano, La. (a company that owns and operates research ships and offshore deepwater service ships),16 and chartered by the NSF. Palmer is considerably smaller than the Coast Guard’s three polar icebreakers—it is 308 feet long and has a displacement of about 6,500 tons. It is operated by a crew of about 22, and can embark a scientific staff of 27 to 37.17 Unlike the Coast Guard’s three polar icebreakers, which are multimission ships, Palmer was purpose-built as a single-mission ship for conducting and supporting scientific research in the Antarctic. It has less icebreaking capability than the Coast Guard’s polar icebreakers, being capable of breaking ice up to 3 feet thick at speeds of 3 knots. This capability is sufficient for breaking through the more benign ice conditions found in the vicinity of the Antarctic Peninsula, so as to resupply Palmer Station, a U.S. research station on the peninsula. Some observers might view Palmer not so much as an icebreaker as an oceanographic research ship with enough icebreaking capability for the Antarctic Peninsula. Palmer’s icebreaking capability is not considered sufficient to perform the McMurdo resupply mission. Summary In summary, the U.S. polar icebreaking fleet currently includes • two heavy polar icebreakers (Polar Star and Polar Sea), one of which is operational, that are designed to perform missions in either polar

February 3, 2015

www.npeo-kmi.com

area, including the challenging McMurdo resupply mission; • one medium polar icebreaker (Healy) that is used primarily for scientific research in the Arctic; and • one ship (Palmer) that is used for scientific research in the Antarctic. Table 1.

Operator U.S.-Government owned?

Polar Star

Polar Sea

Healy

Palmer

USCG

NSF

Yes

Noa

Yes

Yes (reactivated Currently operational? on Dec. 14, 2012) Entered service

1976

1978

2000

1992

Length (feet)

399

420

308

13,200

16,000

6,500

6 feet

4.5 feet

3 feet

21 feet

8 feet

n/a

-60° F

-50° F

n/a

155b

85c

35d

27-37

Displacement (tons) Icebreaking capability at 3 knots (ice thickness in feet) Ice ramming capability (ice thickness in feet) Operating temperature Crew (when operational) Additional scientific staff

Sources: Prepared by CRS using data from U.S. Coast Guard, National Research Council, National Science Foundation, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General, and (for Palmer) additional online reference sources. n/a is not available. a. Owned by Edison Chouest Offshore (ECO) of Galliano, La., and leased to NSF through Raytheon Polar Services Company (RPSC). b. Includes 24 officers, 20 chief petty officers, 102 enlisted, and nine in the aviation detachment. c. Includes 19 officers, 12 chief petty officers, and 54 enlisted. d. In addition to 85 crew members 85 and 35 scientists, the ship can accommodate another 15 surge personnel and two visitors.

In addition to the four ships shown in Table 1, a fifth U.S.-registered polar ship with icebreaking capability—the icebreaking anchor handling tug supply vessel Aiviq—is used by Royal Dutch Shell to support oil exploration and drilling in Arctic waters off Alaska. The ship, which completed construction in 2012, is owned by ECO and chartered by Royal Dutch Shell. It is used primarily for towing and laying anchors for drilling rigs, but is also equipped for responding to oil spills. June 2013 DHS Polar Icebreaker Mission Need Statement The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) approved a Mission Need Statement (MNS) for the polar icebreaker recapitalization project

www.npeo-kmi.com

in June 2013. The MNS states (emphasis added): This Mission Need Statement (MNS) establishes the need for polar icebreaker capabilities provided by the Coast Guard, to ensure that it can meet current and future mission requirements in the polar regions.... Polar Ice Operations support nine of the 11 authorized [i.e., statutory] Coast Guard missions....18 Current requirements and future projections based upon cutter demand modeling, as detailed in the HLMAR [High Latitude Mission Analysis Report], indicate the Coast Guard will need to expand its icebreaking capacity, potentially requiring a fleet of up to six icebreakers (three heavy and three medium) to adequately meet mission demands in the high latitudes.... The analysis took into account both the Coast Guard statutory mission requirements and additional requirements for year-round presence in both polar regions detailed in the Naval Operations Concept (NOC) 2010. The NOC describes when, where, and how U.S. naval forces will contribute to enhancing security, preventing conflict and prevailing in war. The analysis also evaluated employing single- and multi-crewing concepts. Baseline employment standards for single and multi-crew concepts used 185 DAFHP and 250/280 DAFHP, respectively. Strategic home porting analysis based upon existing infrastructure and distance to operational areas provided the final input to determine icebreaker capacity demand.... In response to the national guidance, the HLMAR was commissioned that identified capability gaps in the Coast Guard’s ability to support and conduct required missions in the polar regions. Nine of the Coast Guard’s 11 authorized mission programs are conducted in the high latitudes. These directly support the 2012 Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan as well as 12 of the 22 goals and objectives stated in the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) Report: A Strategic Framework for a Secure Homeland, February 2010 and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Annual Performance Report, Fiscal Years 2010 – 2012.... ... numerous agencies of the Federal Government have an obligation to conduct polar ice operations to meet the requirements mandated by treaties, statutes, and executive direction.... Without recapitalizing the nation’s polar icebreaking capability, the gap between the mission demand and icebreaking capacity and capability will continue to grow. Given the most optimistic scenarios, this gap will grow as the existing fleet ages beyond the vessels’ designed service lives and unscheduled maintenance diminishes the assets’ operational availabilities. Even with straightline demand, the current polar icebreaker fleet will not be sufficient to meet projected mission demands. The Coast Guard will be unable to meet either the current and projected Coast Guard and federal agency mission demands or the goals for the QHSR in the high latitudes. Disapproval of the polar icebreaker project will further challenge the agencies responsible for maintaining an active and influential United States presence in the polar regions.19 A number of studies have been conducted in recent years to assess U.S. requirements for polar icebreakers and options for sustaining and modernizing the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet. The findings of some of these studies are presented in the appendix.

February 3, 2015

January 2014 Implementation Plan for National Strategy for Arctic Region On May 10, 2013, the Obama Administration released a document titled “National Strategy for the Arctic Region.”20 On January 30, 2014, the Obama Administration released an implementation plan for this strategy.21 Of the 36 or so specific initiatives in the implementation plan, one is titled “Sustain federal capability to conduct maritime operations in ice-impacted waters.” The implementation plan states the following regarding this initiative: Objective: Ensure the United States maintains icebreaking and ice-strengthened ship capability with sufficient capacity to project a sovereign U.S. maritime presence, support U.S. interests in the polar regions and facilitate research that advances the fundamental understanding of the Arctic. Next Steps: The federal government requires the ability to conduct operations in ice-impacted waters in the Arctic. As maritime activity in the Arctic region increases, expanded access will be required. Next steps include: • The lead and supporting departments and agencies will develop a document that lists the capabilities needed to operate in iceimpacted waters to support federal activities in the polar regions and emergent sovereign responsibilities over the next 10 to 20 years by the end of 2014. • Develop long-term plans to sustain federal capability to physically access the Arctic with sufficient capacity to support U.S. interests by the end of 2017. Measuring Progress: Sustaining federal capability will be demonstrated through the Federal Government’s ability to conduct operations in the Arctic to support statutory missions and sovereign responsibilities, and to advance interests in the region. Progress in implementing this objective will be measured by completion of the capabilities document, and long-term sustainment plan. Lead Agency: Department of Homeland Security Supporting Agencies: Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Transportation, National Science Foundation[.]22 Cost Estimates for Certain Modernization Options New Replacement Ships The Coast Guard estimated in February 2008 that new replacement ships for the Polar Star and Polar Sea might cost between $800 million and $925 million per ship in 2008 dollars to procure.23 The Coast Guard said that this estimate is based on a ship with integrated electric drive, three propellers and a combined diesel and gas (electric) propulsion plant. The icebreaking capability would be equivalent to the POLAR Class

February 3, 2015

Icebreakers [i.e., Polar Star and Polar Sea] and research facilities and accommodations equivalent to Healy. This cost includes all shipyard and government project costs. Total time to procure a new icebreaker [including mission analysis, studies, design, contract award and construction] is eight to 10 years.24 The Coast Guard further stated that this notional new ship would be designed for a 30-year service life. The High-Latitude Study provided to Congress in July 2011 states that the above figure of $800 million to $925 million in 2008 dollars equates to $900 million to $1,041 million in 2012 dollars. The study provides the following estimates, in 2012 dollars, of the acquisition costs for new polar icebreakers: • • • • •

$856 million for one ship; $1,663 million for two ships—an average of about $832 million each; $2,439 million for three ships—an average of $813 million each; $3,207 million for four ships—an average of about $802 million each; $3,961 million for five ships—an average of about $792 million each; and • $4,704 million for six ships—an average of $784 million each. The study refers to the above estimates as “rough order-of-magnitude costs” that “were developed as part of the Coast Guard’s independent Polar Platform Business Case Analysis.”25 25-Year Service Life Extensions The Coast Guard stated in February 2008 that performing the extensive maintenance, repair and modernization work needed to extend the service lives of the two ships by 25 years might cost roughly $400 million per ship. This figure, the Coast Guard said, is based on assessments made by independent contractors for the Coast Guard in 2004. The service life extension work, the Coast Guard said, would improve the two icebreakers’ installed systems in certain areas. Although the work would be intended to permit the ships to operate for another 25 years, it would not return the cutters to new condition.26 An August 30, 2010, press report stated that the commandant of the Coast Guard at the time, Admiral Robert Papp, estimated the cost

www.npeo-kmi.com

of extending the lives of Polar Star and Polar Sea at about $500 million per ship; the article quoted Papp as stating that Polar Star and Polar Sea “were built to take a beating. They were built with very thick special steel, so you might be able to do a renovation on them and keep going…. I think there are certain types of steel that, if properly maintained, they can go on for an awful long time. What the limit is, I’m not sure.”27 Reactivate Polar Sea for Several Years At a June 26, 2013, hearing before the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Vice Admiral John P. Currier, the vice commandant of the Coast Guard, testified that repairing and reactivating Polar Sea for an additional seven to 10 years of service would require about three years of repair work at a cost of about $100 million.28 As mentioned earlier, the business case analysis required by Section 222 of H.R. 2838/P.L. 112-213 was submitted to Congress with a cover date of November 7, 2013. The executive summary of the analysis states: Findings: A total of 43 mission-critical systems in five general categories were assessed and assigned a condition rating. Overall, propulsion, auxiliary and prime mission equipment are rated poor to fair, while structure and habitability are rated fair to good. Polar Sea reactivation is estimated to cost $99.2 million (excluding annual operations and support costs) to provide seven to 10 years of service to the Coast Guard. Given the age of the icebreaker, operations and support costs are projected to rise from $36.6 million in the first year of operation to $52.8 million in the 10th year of operation. Combining reactivation costs and point estimates for operating costs, reactivation would cost $573.9 million. Accounting for operational and technical uncertainties, using a 90% confidence level risk analysis, the total potential cost rises to $751.7 million. Arctic seasonal icebreaking demands through 2022 can be met with existing and planned Coast Guard assets, as current requirements do not justify the need for heavy icebreaking capability in the Arctic. Heavy icebreaker capability is needed to perform Operation Deep Freeze in Antarctica, but Coast Guard assets may not be the only option available to the National Science Foundation to support this activity. Although a second heavy icebreaker would provide redundancy, the cost of this redundant capability would come at the expense of more pressing and immediate operational demands. Polar Star, when fully reactivated, will provide heavy icebreaker capability until a new icebreaker can be delivered to meet both current and emerging requirements.29 At a July 23, 2014, hearing before the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Vice Admiral Peter Neffenger, the vice commandant of the Coast Guard, testified that “as I understand it, that $100 million [estimate] was a snapshot in time if we were to have begun at that point to reactivate the vessel. We believe that there’s been some additional deterioration [in the ship’s condition] in the 2.5 years it’s been sitting [at pier].... But I suspect that it will be something more than $100 million once we do the assessment [of the ship’s condition].”30 Recent Coast Guard Acquisition Actions An October 6, 2014 trade press report stated: Reaching out to industry, the Coast Guard has issued a request

www.npeo-kmi.com

for information (RFI) for commercial heavy polar icebreaker designs and the capability of industry in the United States to build such a ship.... In a September 30 notice in the FedBizOpps.gov, the Coast Guard says the RFI is a “precursor” to a potential procurement of a non-nuclear polar icebreaker. The Coast Guard is interested in commercial and scientific research icebreakers that can be, or be configured to meet, its operational mission requirements. Responses may be used to help the service develop an acquisition strategy, it says. The minimum mission set is to be able to perform operations that the 399-foot Polar Star can do, the Coast Guard says.31 The Coast Guard stated on June 20, 2014, that The U.S. Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker acquisition project achieved the next acquisition milestone on June 13, 2014, with approval to enter the analyze/select phase of the Department of Homeland Security acquisition life cycle. This action validates the need for continued icebreaker capabilities and allows the project to move forward to the next acquisition phase. Approval to proceed was granted after the Coast Guard identified specific capabilities necessary to address mission performance gaps and prepared a formal mission need statement, concept of operations overview and preliminary acquisition plan. During the analyze/select phase, the Coast Guard will develop operational requirements for a future polar icebreaker, identify resources required to maintain the asset through its life cycle and assess potential alternatives capable of meeting polar icebreaking mission requirements.32 Funding for New Polar Icebreaker FY13 Budget Submission The Coast Guard’s FY13 budget initiated a new project for the design and construction of a new polar icebreaker. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY13 budget requested $8 million in FY13 acquisition funding to initiate survey and design activities for the ship, and projected an additional $852 million in FY13 to FY17 for acquiring the ship. The Coast Guard’s FY13 budget anticipated awarding a construction contract for the ship “within the next five years” and taking delivery on the ship “within a decade.” FY14 Budget Submission The Coast Guard’s proposed FY14 budget requested $2 million in acquisition funding to continue survey and design activities for the ship, or $118 million less than the $120 million that was projected for FY14 under the FY13 budget. The Coast Guard’s FY14 budget submission projects an additional $228 million in FY15 to FY18 for acquiring the ship, including $128 million in FY15 to FY17, or $604 million less than the $732 million that was projected for FY15 to FY17 under the Coast Guard’s FY13 budget submission. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY14 budget anticipates awarding a construction contract for the ship “within the next four years.” The Coast Guard states that the requested FY14 funding will be used to continue development of programmatic planning documents required under the USCG Major Systems Acquisition Manual, including an analysis of alternatives, a life cycle cost estimate, modeling simulation and testing (as required) to build a modern polar icebreaker. Together with funding provided in 2013, Coast Guard will complete the mission needs statement, the concept of operations and the preliminary operational requirements document.

February 3, 2015

These efforts will lead to development of a formal icebreaker acquisition project, with the award for construction anticipated within the next four years.33 FY15 Budget Submission The Coast Guard’s FY15 budget submission states that the polar icebreaker project received $7.609 million in FY13 and $2.0 million in FY14. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY15 budget requests $6 million to continue initial acquisition activities for the ship. The Coast Guard states that the FY15 funding Continues initial activities for a new polar icebreaker, intended to provide continued U.S. Polar icebreaking capability following the projected end of service life of CGC Polar Star. This effort will consider requirements analyses undertaken by the Coast Guard within the past several years, including the High-Latitude Mission Analysis Report, and the Polar Icebreaker Business Case Analysis. Additionally, this effort will be informed by the priorities of the U.S. Arctic Region Policy. This funding will be used to continue development of programmatic planning documents required under the USCG Major Systems Acquisition Manual, including a life cycle cost estimate and modeling simulation and testing (as required). This funding will also support the development of an initial specification. These efforts will lead to development of a Request for Proposal. FY13 Key Events • Mission Needs Statement Approved; • Concept of Operations Approved; • Initial Acquisition Strategy Approved. FY14 Planned Key Events • Capability Development Plan Approval; • Preliminary Operational Requirements Document Development/ Approval; • Alternatives Analysis Study Plan Approval.

Operational Requirements Document Development/Approval; Finalize Alternatives Analysis; Complete Initial Lifecycle Cost Estimate; Conduct Feasibility Studies.34

FY13, FY14 and FY15 Budget Submissions Compared Table 2. Funding for Acquisition of New Polar Icebreaker Under FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015 Budget Submissions (millions of then-year dollars)

FY2013

FY13

FY14

FY15

FY16

FY17

FY18

FY19

120

380

270

—

100

—

100

Budget FY2014 Budget FY2015 Budget Source: Coast Guard FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015 budget submissions.

February 3, 2015

Time Line for Acquiring New Polar Icebreaker One potential issue for Congress concerns the timeline for acquiring a new polar icebreaker, which appears to have become less certain in the FY15 budget submission. In the FY13 budget submission—the submission that initiated the project to acquire the ship—DHS stated that it anticipated awarding a construction contract for the ship “within the next five years” and taking delivery on the ship “within a decade.”35 In the FY14 budget submission, DHS stated that it anticipated awarding a construction contract for the ship “within the next four years.”36 In the Coast Guard’s FY15 budget-justification book, the entry for the polar icebreaker program does not make a statement as to when a construction contract for the ship might be awarded.37 Coast Guard testimony about the icebreaker in 2014 suggests that if the Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction and Improvement (AC&I) appropriation account remains at about $1 billion per year in coming years (as opposed to some higher figure, such as $1.5 or $2 billion per year), the icebreaker could become something like an unfunded requirement. For example, at a March 26, 2014 hearing on the proposed FY15 budgets for the Coast Guard and maritime transportation programs before the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Admiral Robert Papp, the commandant of the Coast Guard at the time, testified that “It’s going to be tough to fit a billion dollar icebreaker in our five-year plan without displacing other things,” that “I can’t afford to pay for an icebreaker in a $1 billion [per year capital investment plan] because it would just displace other things that I have a higher priority for,” and that “I still believe firmly, we need to build a new one but we don’t have [the] wherewithal right now, but doing the preliminary work should inform decisions that are made three, four, five, maybe 10 years from now.”38 Number and Capabilities of Future Polar Icebreakers Another potential issue for Congress is how many polar icebreakers, with what capabilities, the Coast Guard will need in the future. As noted earlier, the MNS for the polar icebreaker recapitalization project that was approved by DHS in June 2013 states:

FY15 Planned Key Events • • • •

Issues for Congress

Current requirements and future projections based upon cutter demand modeling, as detailed in the HLMAR, indicate the Coast Guard will need to expand its icebreaking capacity, potentially requiring a fleet of up to six icebreakers (three heavy and three medium) to adequately meet mission demands in the high latitudes.39 In addition to the MNS and the studies discussed in the appendix, below are some comments that Congress may take into account in assessing the issue of how many polar icebreakers, with what capabilities, the Coast Guard will need in the future. Factors to Consider In assessing the issue of how many polar icebreakers, with what capabilities, the Coast Guard will need in the future, factors that Congress may consider include, but are not limited to, the following: • current and projected mission demands for Coast Guard polar icebreakers as analyzed in the High-Latitude Study and other recent

www.npeo-kmi.com

studies, including an assessment of how those demands might be affected by NSF decisions on how to acquire icebreaking services to support its research activities; • the potential for various mission demands (not just those conducted in support of NSF research activities) to be met by non-Coast Guard icebreakers, including leases or charters of icebreakers owned by foreign governments or private companies; • the Coast Guard’s overall missions versus resources situation, which includes the Coast Guard’s requirements to perform many nonpolar missions and the Coast Guard’s desire to fund programs for performing these non-polar missions.40 Regarding the first factor above, the NSF states that although Coast Guard polar icebreakers are very capable, the NSF is mandated by presidential directive to perform its research activities in the most costeffective way possible, and that it can be more expensive for NSF to support its research activities with Coast Guard polar icebreakers than with charters of icebreakers crewed by contractor personnel. Although Coast Guard polar icebreakers in the past have performed the annual McMurdo break-in mission, the NSF in certain recent years has chartered Russian and Swedish contractor-operated icebreakers to perform the mission (with a Coast Guard polar icebreaker standing ready to assist if needed). The NSF has also noted that Healy, though very capable in supporting Arctic research, operates at sea for about 200 days a year, as opposed to about 300 days a year for foreign contractor-operated polar icebreakers. The Coast Guard states that Beginning with Deep Freeze 2008, NSF opted to perform the McMurdo break-in with the Swedish icebreaker Oden under a five-year contract with the Swedish government. In July 2011, the government of Sweden canceled the contract, forcing NSF to contract with Murmansk Shipping Company for use of the Russian icebreaker Vladimir Ignatyuk. NSF awarded a base contract of one year (for Deep Freeze 2012) and two option years, pending Polar Star’s return to service. NSF exercised one option year for Deep Freeze 2013, and requested Polar Star for Deep Freeze 2014. NSF currently intends to use Polar Star for 2015 and for the foreseeable future.41 Regarding the second factor above, issues to consider would include, among other things, the potential availability of ships for lease, leasing costs, regulatory issues relating to long-term leases of capital assets for the U.S. government, and the ability of leased ships to perform the missions in question, including the mission of defending U.S. sovereignty in Arctic waters north of Alaska, the challenging McMurdo resupply mission, or missions that emerge suddenly in response to unexpected events.42 Regarding the first two factors above, some observers note the size of the polar icebreaking fleets operated by other countries. Countries with interests in the polar regions have differing requirements for polar icebreakers, depending on the nature and extent of their polar activities. Table 3 shows a Coast Guard summary of major icebreakers around the world; the figures in the table include some icebreakers designed for use in the Baltic Sea. Notional Arguments for Various Numbers Advocates of a Coast Guard polar icebreaker fleet that includes two ships—Healy plus one heavy polar icebreaker—might argue that the

www.npeo-kmi.com

Coast Guard operated with such a force between July 1, 2006 (when Polar Star went into caretaker status), until June 2010 (when Polar Sea suffered an engine casualty and was removed from service), that the Coast Guard, following the reactivation of Polar Sea on December 14, 2012, is once again operating with such a force, and that a force with Healy plus one heavy polar icebreaker would cost less than a larger polar icebreaker fleet missions. Advocates of a Coast Guard fleet that includes three ships—Healy plus two heavy polar icebreakers—might argue that the 2007 NRC report recommended a polar icebreaking fleet of three multimission polar icebreakers (i.e., Healy plus two additional polar icebreakers), that the Coast Guard operated with such a force from 2000, when Healy entered service, until July 1, 2006, when Polar Star went into caretaker status, that the 2006 to 2010 force of Healy and one heavy polar icebreaker made it more difficult for the Coast Guard to perform the McMurdo resupply mission using its own assets, that a force that includes two heavy polar icebreakers rather than one would provide more flexibility for responding to polar contingencies or dealing with mechanical problems on a heavy polar icebreaker, and that such a force would still be sufficiently affordable to permit the Coast Guard to adequately fund programs for performing non-polar missions. Advocates of a Coast Guard fleet that includes Healy plus three heavy polar icebreakers might argue that the MNS that was approved by DHS in June 2013 (see “June 2013 DHS Polar Icebreaker Mission Need Statement” in “Background”) states that “[c]urrent requirements and future projections based upon cutter demand modeling, as detailed in the HLMAR, indicate the Coast Guard will need to expand its icebreaking capacity, potentially requiring a fleet of up to six icebreakers (three heavy and three medium) to adequately meet mission demands in the high latitudes.”43 They might argue that a force with three heavy polar icebreakers would provide additional capability for responding to potentially increased commercial and military activities in the Arctic, that it would more strongly signal U.S. commitment to defending its sovereignty and other interests in the region, and that while such a force would be more expensive than a smaller polar icebreaker fleet, the added investment would be justified in light of the growing focus on U.S. polar interests. Disposition of Polar Sea Another potential issue for Congress concerns the disposition of Polar Sea. As mentioned earlier, Section 222 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (H.R. 2838/P.L. 112- 213 of December 20, 2012) prohibited the Coast Guard from removing any part of Polar Sea and from transferring, relinquishing ownership of, dismantling or recycling the ship until it submits a business case analysis of the options for and costs of reactivating the ship and extending its service life to at least September 30, 2022, so as to maintain U.S. polar icebreaking capabilities and fulfill the Coast Guard’s high latitude mission needs, as identified in the Coast Guard’s July 2010, High-Latitude Study Mission Analysis Report. As also mentioned earlier, the business case analysis required by Section 222 was submitted to Congress with a cover date of November 7, 2013 (see “Reactivate Polar Sea for Several Years” in “Background.”) Options for the disposition of the ship include the following, among others: • repairing and reactivating the ship; • keeping the ship in preservation status in the Maritime Administration’s (MARAD’s) National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF)

February 3, 2015

for potential reactivation to meet increased polar icebreaking needs or to replace Polar Star, should that ship be removed from service before the end of its anticipated seven- to 10-year post reactivation service life due to an accident or the failure of critical equipment that cannot be cost-effectively repaired; • selling or transferring the ship to another government or to a private owner; and • dismantling the ship and recycling its scrap metal. Incremental Funding vs. Full Funding

Table 3. Major Icebreakers Around the World (as of June 26, 2014) Total all types, in inventory (+ under construction + planned) Russia 40 (+ 6 + 5) Finland Sweden Canada

In inventory, government operated

45,000 or more BHP

20,000 to 44,999 BHP

10,000 to 19,999 BHP

6 (all nuclear powered; 4 operational)

3 4 2

1 2 4

7 (+ 0 +1) 6 6 (+0 +1)

United States

5 (+0 +1)

Denmark Estonia Norway Germany China Japan Australia Chile Latvia South Korea South Africa

4 2 1 (+0 +1) 1 (+0 +1) 1 (+0 +1) 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 (Polar Star and Polar Sea – Polar Sea not operational)

1 (Healy)

In inventory, privately owned and operated 45,000 or more BHP

20,000 to 44,999 BHP

10,000 to 19,999 BHP

1 (Aiviq – built for Shell Oil)

1 (Palmer)

4 2 1 1 1

Another potential issue for Congress concerns the Coast Guard’s proposal to fund the acquisition of a new icebreaker using incremen1 tal funding (i.e., a series of annual 1 funding increments) rather than full 1 funding (i.e., placing most or all of 1 the ship’s acquisition cost into a 1 single year). Section 31.6 of Office 1 of Management and Budget (OMB) 1 (not Argentina 1 Circular A-1144 normally requires operational) executive branch agencies to use full Source: Table prepared by CRS based on U.S. Coast Guard chart showing data compiled by the Coast funding for acquiring capital assets Guard as of June 26, 2014, accessed online July 1, 2014, at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg552/ice. such as a new ship. The Coast Guard asp. The table also lists the United Kingdom as planning one new polar research vessel. appears to have received permisNotes: Includes some icebreakers designed for use in the Baltic Sea. BHP = the brake horsepower of sion from OMB to propose the use of the ship’s power plant. A ship with 45,000 or more BHP might be considered a heavy polar icebreaker, incremental funding for acquiring a a ship with 20,000 to 44,999 BHP might be considered a medium polar icebreaker, and a ship with new polar icebreaker; Congress may 10,000 to 19,999 BHP might be considered a light polar icebreaker or an ice-capable polar ship. choose to approve, reject or modify this proposal. Supporters of using incremental funding to acquire a new polar icebreaker could argue that fundicebreaker could weaken adherence to the policy by setting a precedent ing this ship in a single year would create a one-year “spike” in Coast for using incremental funding for acquiring other capital assets costing Guard funding requirements that could require offsetting and potentially less than $1 billion. disruptive one-year reductions in other Coast Guard programs, and that The issue of incremental funding as an alternative to full funding using incremental funding mitigates the spiking issue by spreading the in the acquisition of Navy ships is discussed at length in other CRS ship’s cost over several years. Supporters could argue that avoiding reports.47 such budget spikes is a principal reason why the Navy in recent years Funding Ships in Coast Guard Budget or Elsewhere has been given permission by OMB and Congress to use incremental funding to procure aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships,45 and Another potential issue for Congress, if it is determined that one or that a polar icebreaker is analogous to an aircraft carrier or an amphibimore new icebreakers should be procured by the government through ous assault ship in being a very expensive (for the Coast Guard) ship a traditional acquisition, is whether the acquisition cost of those ships that is procured once every several years. should be funded entirely through Coast Guard’s Acquisition, ConstrucSupporters of using full funding to acquire a new polar icebreaker tion and Improvements (AC&I) account, or partly or entirely through could argue that the acquisition cost of a polar icebreaker (roughly $900 other parts of the federal budget, such as the Department of Defense million), though large by Coast Guard standards, is much less than that (DoD) budget, the NSF budget or both.48 Within the DoD budget, posof an aircraft carrier (more than $11 billion) or an amphibious assault sibilities include the Navy’s shipbuilding account, called the Shipbuilding ship (more than $3 billion). They could argue that OMB believes using and Conversion, Navy (SCN) account, and the National Defense Sealift full funding reduces risks in the acquisition of capital assets,46 and that Fund (NDSF), which is an account where DoD sealift ships and Navy permitting the use of incremental funding for the procurement of a polar auxiliary ships are funded.

February 3, 2015

www.npeo-kmi.com

There is precedent for funding Coast Guard icebreakers in the DoD budget: The procurement of Healy was funded in FY90 in the DoD budget—specifically, the SCN account.49 Advocates of funding new icebreakers partly or entirely through the SCN account or the NDSF might argue that this could permit the funding of new icebreakers while putting less pressure on other parts of the Coast Guard’s budget. They might also argue that it would permit the new icebreaker program to benefit from the Navy’s experience in managing shipbuilding programs. Opponents might argue that funding new icebreakers in the SCN account or the NDSF might put pressure on these other two accounts at a time when the Navy and DoD are facing challenges funding their own shipbuilding and other priorities. They might also argue that having the Navy manage the Coast Guard’s icebreaker program would add complexity to the acquisition effort, and that it is unclear whether the Navy’s recent performance in managing shipbuilding programs is better than the Coast Guard’s, since both services have recently experienced problems in managing shipbuilding programs—the Coast Guard with the procurement of new Deepwater cutters, and the Navy in the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program and the LPD-17 class amphibious ship program.50 At a March 12, 2014, hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed FY15 budget before the Homeland Security subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, the commandant of the Coast at the time, Admiral Robert Papp stated: What concerns me, however, is—particularly as I’m being constrained closer to the billion dollar range in my acquisition projects [i.e., the Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction and Improvements, or AC&I, account], I don’t—I don’t know how you fit in a billion-dollar icebreaker. Because at some point, you’re going to have to take—even if you do it with a multi-year strategy [i.e., incremental funding], you’re going to have go $300 billion [sic: million] or $400 billion [sic: million] in a couple of years, which would displace other very important things. So, we’re having to take a hard look at this. One way of doing it is to say, ‘Okay, this icebreaker serves the interagency.’ The Department of Defense could call on us. NSF certainly does, and other agencies. Why should that not be a shared expense? And, oh, by the way, if all these companies are going to be making that much money off oil exploration and the Arctic, maybe they can share in the cost of this icebreaker.51 A moment later in the hearing, Papp also stated: And I know the president has committed us to designing an icebreaker. We haven’t committed to building an icebreaker yet. And if I’m constrained at a billion dollars [per year in the AC&I account], I just don’t know how you do it. Because I have higher priorities to build within that—that AC&I money.52 Similarly, at a March 26, 2014, hearing on the proposed FY15 budget for the Coast Guard and maritime transportation programs

www.npeo-kmi.com

before the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Papp stated, in response to a question about the Coast Guard’s five-year capital investment plan (CIP), that we’re facing the need for icebreaker for the United States. It’s going to be tough to fit a billion dollar icebreaker in our five-year plan without displacing other things. If there’s going to be no growth in the budget and that’s what I have to plan for right now, I need to address those highest priorities that I have but rightly so, there are other people who have opinions with an opening Arctic and other things that perhaps, an icebreaker ought to be a higher priority. These things needed to be negotiated out and then come to an administration’s position on what the highest priorities are. I’m hopeful that the priorities that I see for the Coast Guard will be reflected in that SIP [sic: CIP] when it gets up here.53 A moment later in the hearing, he also stated: I can’t afford to pay for an icebreaker in a 1-billion-dollar [per year] SIP [sic: CIP] because it would just displace other things that I have a higher priority for. So we’re looking at other alternatives, perhaps one of those alternatives, the Congress came up with a requirement for a business base analysis on the remaining Polar Seal [sic: Sea] icebreaker, Polar Sea and potentially, we might be able to overhaul Polar Sea and fit that into the SIP [sic: CIP] as an affordable means for providing an additional icebreaker as we await a time that we can build a new icebreaker. If we are going to build a new icebreaker, if that is a priority, we just can’t fit it within our acquisition account and I would look across the inter-agency [for the funding].54 Later in the hearing, he stated: The Offshore Patrol Cutter is my highest priority for the Coast Guard. I need to fit that in the budget and I fear that if we try to fit the cost of an icebreaker in there, it would displace the Offshore

February 3, 2015

Patrol Cutter or some other very important things. So my number one option is to get support across the inter-agency, those agencies that benefit from the support of an icebreaker to contribute towards the construction of it, that would be my first choice. My second choice however, when I start looking at what can I fit within our acquisition budget refurbishment of the Polar Sea maybe a viable option for that. I would say what you would want to do is overlap and so as Polar Star is coming towards the end of that decade of service after refurbishment, we have polar—I think I said Polar Star.55 The Coast Guard states on its Internet page for the polar icebreaker program that In order to fully fund subsequent phases of this project, the Coast Guard believes that a “whole-of-government” approach will be necessary. Obtaining a new, heavy polar icebreaker that meets Coast Guard requirements will depend upon supplementary financing from other agencies whose activities also rely upon the nation possessing a robust, Arctic-capable surface fleet.56 The prepared statement of the GAO witness at a December 1, 2011 hearing before the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that focused primarily on icebreakers states: Another alternative option addressed by the recapitalization report would be to fund new icebreakers through the NSF. However, the analysis of this option concluded that funding a new icebreaker through the existing NSF budget would have significant adverse impacts on NSF operations and that the capability needed for Coast Guard requirements would exceed that needed by the NSF. The recapitalization report noted that a funding approach similar to the approach used for the Healy, which was funded through the FY90 DOD appropriations, should be considered. However, the report did not analyze the feasibility of this option. We have previously reported that because of the Coast Guard’s statutory role as both a federal maritime agency and a branch of the military, it can receive funding through both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOD. For example, as we previously reported, although the U.S. Navy is not expressly required to provide funding to the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard receives funding from the Navy to purchase and maintain equipment, such as self-defense systems or communication systems, because it is in the Navy’s interest for the Coast Guard systems to be compatible with the Navy’s systems when the Coast Guard is performing national defense missions in support of the Navy. However, according to a Coast Guard budget official, the Coast Guard receives the majority of its funding through the DHS appropriation, with the exception of reimbursements for specific activities. Also, as the Recapitalization plan acknowledges, there is considerable strain on the DoD budget. A recent DoD report on the Arctic also notes budgetary challenges, stating that the near-term fiscal and political environment will make it difficult to support significant new U.S. investments in the Arctic. Furthermore, DoD and the Coast Guard face different mission requirements and timelines. For example, DoD’s recent report states that the current level of human activity in the Arctic is already of concern to DHS, whereas the Arctic is expected to remain a peripheral interest to much of the na-

February 3, 2015

tional security community for the next decade or more. As a result, the Coast Guard has a more immediate need than DoD to acquire Arctic capabilities, such as icebreakers. For example, with preliminary plans for drilling activity approved in 2011, the Coast Guard must be prepared to provide environmental response in the event of an oil spill. Similarly, as cruise ship traffic continues to increase, the Coast Guard must be prepared to conduct search and rescue operations should an incident occur. For these reasons, it is unlikely that an approach similar to the one that was used to build the Healy would be feasible at this time.57 New Construction vs. Service Life Extension Another potential issue for Congress is whether requirements for polar icebreakers over the next 25 to 30 years should be met by building new ships, by extending the service lives of existing polar icebreakers, or by pursuing some combination of these options. In assessing this question, factors to consider include the relative costs of these options, the capabilities that each option would provide, the long-term supportability of older ships whose service lives have been extended, and industrial-base impacts. Regarding relative costs, as discussed in the “Background” section, the Coast Guard estimates that new icebreakers with a 30-year design life might cost $800 to $925 million per ship in 2008 dollars, while a 25year service life extension of Polar Star and Polar Sea might cost about $400 million per ship in 2008 dollars,58 and repairing and reactivating Polar Sea for seven to 10 years of operation might cost about $100 million. These estimates, however, should be compared with caution: The estimate for building new ships depends in part on the capabilities that were assumed for those ships, and estimates for service-life extension work can be very uncertain due to the potential for discovering new things about a ship’s condition once the ship is opened up for servicelife-extension work. Regarding capabilities provided by each option, the new-construction option would provide entirely new ships with extensive use of new technology, while the service-life-extension option would provide ships that, although modernized and reconditioned, would not be entirely new and would likely make less extensive use of new technologies. Among other things, new construction ships might be able to make more extensive use of new technologies for reducing crew size, which is a significant factor in a ship’s life cycle operating and support costs. Regarding long-term supportability of older ships, the Coast Guard has expressed concern about the ability to support ships whose service lives have been extended after FY14, because some contracts that currently provide that support are scheduled to end that year.59 Regarding potential impact on the industrial base, repair and reactivation work and service life extensions would likely provide shipyards and supplier firms with less work, and also exercise a smaller set of shipyard construction skills, than would building new ships. A June 18, 2014 press report states: The U.S. Coast Guard’s No. 2 commander said refurbishing the aging Polar Sea icebreaker now idled in Seattle would allow it to meet the nation’s Arctic mission for the next decade until a replacement ship can be built. The comment Wednesday by Vice Admiral Peter Neffenger is the Coast Guard’s clearest endorsement yet for fixing up the 1970sera Polar Sea, which in 2012 was on the verge of being decommissioned and used for spare parts for its sister ship, the Polar Star.

www.npeo-kmi.com

In an interview at a seminar on Arctic shipping hosted by the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Washington, D.C., Neffenger said salvaging the Polar Sea would be a “viable alternative” to a new heavy-duty icebreaker that could cost up to $1 billion. “We think that would be adequate (to meet the mission) for the next 10 years,” Neffenger said. In March, then-Admiral Robert Papp offered a more tepid embrace during a congressional hearing. Papp testified that returning the Polar Sea to service was an option, but noted for the record that “I didn’t say a good option.” Neffenger, who began serving as vice commandant in May, said retrofitting the Polar Sea would be a stopgap solution. It can take a decade to build a new icebreaker, and the United States needs to act quickly. “That window is now,” he said.60 Procurement vs. Leasing Another potential issue for Congress is whether future polar icebreakers should be acquired through a traditional acquisition (i.e., the government procuring the ship and owning it throughout its service life) or through a leasing arrangement (under which the icebreakers would be privately built and privately owned, leased to the Coast Guard, and crewed by an all-Coast Guard crew or a mix of Coast Guard personnel and civilian mariners). Factors to consider in assessing this issue include the comparative costs of the two options and the potential differences between them in terms of factors such as average number of days of operation each year and capability for performing various missions. Comparing the potential costs of leasing versus purchasing a capital asset often involves, among other things, calculating the net present value of each option. At a December 1, 2011 hearing before the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that focused on the polar icebreaker fleet, Admiral Robert Papp, the commandant of the Coast Guard at the time, stated:

Management and Budget Circular] A-11 requirements that [direct how to] score the money [in the budget] for leasing. We’d have to put up a significant amount of upfront money even with a lease that we don’t have room for within our budget currently.61 At another point in the hearing, Admiral Papp stated: We have looked at various business case scenarios, each and every time looking at, once again, from our normal perspective, the Coast Guard perspective, which has been owning ships forever. And generally, we keep ships 30 to 40 years or beyond. There is a point where leasing becomes more expensive, it’s at or about the 20- to 25-year timeline. I just don’t have the experience with leasing to be able to give you a good opinion on it. And once again, I’m ambivalent. We just need the icebreaking capability, I think it’s for people who can do the analysis, the proper analysis of—but also have to take into account the capabilities required and we need to get about the business of determining the exact capabilities that we need which would take into account National Science Foundation requirements, Coast Guard requirements, requirements to break-in at McMurdo, to come up with a capable ship.62 At another point in the hearing, he stated:

As far as we can determine, there are no icebreakers available— no heavy icebreakers available for leasing right now. They would have to be constructed [and then leased]. If we were to lease an icebreaker, I’m sure that a company building an icebreaker outside of the government does not have to contend with the same federal acquisition rules that we have to if we were to construct an icebreaker. It could probably be done quicker. Personally, I’m ambivalent in terms of how we get an icebreaker for the Coast Guard. We’ve done the legal research. If we lease an icebreaker, we can put a Coast Guard crew on it and still have it as a U.S. vessel supporting U.S. sovereignty. But the—but they aren’t available right now. And the other challenge that we face is the federal acquisition rules and [Office of

www.npeo-kmi.com

As I said, sir, I am truly ambivalent to this except from what I experienced. I do have now two points, yes the Navy leases some ships, but we’ve got a Navy that has well over 300 ships. So if they lose a leased vessel or something is pulled back or something happens, they have plenty of other ships they can fall back upon. Right now, all I am falling back on is the Coast Guard cutter Healy. And it feels good to know that we own that and that is our ship for 30 or 40 years and we can rely upon it. In terms of leasing, I don’t know. My personal experience is I lease one of my two cars and I pay a lot of money leasing my car. But at the end of the lease period, I have no car and I’ve spent a lot of money. So I don’t know if that’s directly applicable to ships

February 3, 2015

as well, but right now I got half my garage is empty because I just turned one in.63 At another point in the hearing, he stated: We’ve looked through the legal considerations on this, as long as we have a Coast Guard crew. In fact, you can even make a mixed crew of civilians and Coast Guard people. But as long as it’s commanding by—commanded by [a] commissioned officer, you can assert sovereignty, you can take it into war zones and, in fact, the Navy does that as well.64 Another witness at the hearing—Mead Treadwell, the lieutenant governor of Alaska—stated: [Regarding] The issue of the ships, the company that is building these ships for Shell [Oil] has visited with me and other state officials, and that’s why you heard us say in our testimony that we think the leasing option should be considered. We don’t have a way to judge the relative cost. But if on the face of it, it seems like it may be a way to get us the capability that the admiral needs.65 Another witness at the hearing—Jeffrey Garrett, a retired Coast Guard admiral who spent much of his career on polar icebreakers— stated: The perspective I could offer was when I was a member of the Cameron [sic: Commandant’s?] staff back in the last ‘80s here in Washington, we were directed to pursue exactly the same sort of lease versus buy analysis, and in fact, the Coast Guard had a two track procurement strategy to compare leasing a new Polar icebreaker or buying it. And after over a year of analysis, studies, discussion with other agencies looking around, what became clear was, number one, there was no off-the-shelf asset readily available. And secondly, that in the long run, if you—when you cost it all out and the value of the stream of payments, leasing would actually cost more. And when we did the recapitalization analysis recently, we also reviewed leasing again, and I think the findings in that report indicate more expensive over the life of the vessel by about 12 percent.66 When asked why this was the finding, Garrett stated: A couple of technical things. First of all, whoever builds the ship—and again, this will have to be ship built for the Coast Guard since there’s not something off-the-shelf out there that you could lease. Whoever builds it has to raise capital, and nobody can raise capital more inexpensively than the federal government. Secondly, whoever leases the ship is obviously going to make—want to make a profit on that lease. So just like as Admiral Papp referred to leasing your car, you know, there’s going to be a profit involved. And so, if you take the net present value of all of those, of those payments, you got come out with the more expensive package for the same, if you’re comparing the same vessel. The other, the other issue I think is more intangible and that’s just the fact that we’re really not talking about an auxiliary like the Naval, like the Navy leases a supply ship or something like that. We’re talking about a frontline Coast Guard capital asset, if you

February 3, 2015

will, capital ship that’s going to be doing frontline government missions projecting U.S. sovereignty. And you know, the Navy doesn’t lease those kinds of ships for its frontline fleet and the Coast Guard doesn’t lease those kinds of ships for its mission capabilities, and that’s what we’re really talking about in terms of the ship we need here. So while a lease may look attractive, I think there are several things that indicate it may not be the right way to go. And the—I think that’s what we came down to. And again, this is all documented in the past and that late ‘80s analysis was re-summarizing the president’s 1990 report to Congress which basically says leasing is more expensive and it’s not the way to go for a new ship. That was the ship that actually became the Healy then.67 The prepared statement of Stephen Caldwell, the GAO witness at the hearing, states: The three reports discussed earlier in this [GAO] statement all identify funding as a central issue in addressing the existing and anticipated challenges related to icebreakers. In addition to the Coast Guard budget analysis included in the recapitalization report, all three reports reviewed alternative financing options, including the potential for leasing icebreakers, or funding icebreakers through the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the Department of Defense (DoD). Although DoD has used leases and charters in the past when procurement funding levels were insufficient to address mission requirements and capabilities, both the recapitalization report and the High Latitude Study determined that the lack of existing domestic commercial vessels capable of meeting the Coast Guard’s mission requirements reduces the availability of leasing options for the Coast Guard. Additionally, an initial cost-benefit analysis of one type of available leasing option included in the recapitalization report and the High Latitude Study suggests that it may ultimately be more costly to the Coast Guard over the 30-year icebreaker lifespan.68 Appendix. Recent Studies Relating to Coast Guard Polar Icebreakers A number of studies have been conducted in recent years to assess U.S. requirements for polar icebreakers and options for sustaining and modernizing the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet. This appendix presents the findings of some of these studies. Coast Guard High Latitude Study Provided to Congress in July 2011 In July 2011, the Coast Guard provided to Congress a study on the Coast Guard’s missions and capabilities for operations in highlatitude (i.e., polar) areas. The study, commonly known as the High Latitude Study, is dated July 2010 on its cover. The High Latitude Study concluded the following: [The study] concludes that future capability and capacity gaps will significantly impact four [Coast Guard] mission areas in the Arctic: Defense Readiness, Ice Operations, Marine Environmental Protection, and Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security. These mission areas address the protection of important national interests in a geographic area where other nations are actively pursuing their own national goals....

www.npeo-kmi.com

The common and dominant contributor to these significant mission impacts is the gap in polar icebreaking capability. The increasing obsolescence of the Coast Guard’s icebreaker fleet will further exacerbate mission performance gaps in the coming years.... The gap in polar icebreaking capacity has resulted in a lack of at-sea time for crews and senior personnel and a corresponding gap in training and leadership. In addition to providing multimission capability and intrinsic mobility, a helicopter-capable surface unit would eliminate the need for acquiring an expensive shorebased infrastructure that may only be needed on a seasonal or occasional basis. The most capable surface unit would be a polar icebreaker. Polar icebreakers can transit safely in a variety of ice conditions and have the endurance to operate far from logistics bases. The Coast Guard’s polar icebreakers have conducted a wide range of planned and unscheduled Coast Guard missions in the past. Polar icebreakers possess the ability to carry large numbers of passengers, cargo, boats, and helicopters. Polar icebreakers also have substantial command, control, and communications capabilities. The flexibility and mobility of polar icebreakers would assist the Coast Guard in closing future mission performance gaps effectively.... Existing capability and capacity gaps are expected to significantly impact future Coast Guard performance in two Antarctic mission areas: Defense Readiness and Ice Operations. Future gaps may involve an inability to carry out probable and easily projected mission requirements, such as the McMurdo resupply, or readiness to respond to less-predictable events. By their nature, contingencies requiring the use of military capabilities often occur quickly. As is the case in the Arctic, the deterioration of the Coast Guard’s icebreaker fleet is the primary driver for this significant mission impact. This will further widen mission performance gaps in the coming years. The recently issued Naval Operations Concept 2010 requires a surface presence in both the Arctic and Antarctic. This further exacerbates the capability gap left by the deterioration of the icebreaker fleet.... The significant deterioration of the Coast Guard icebreaker fleet and the emerging mission demands to meet future functional requirements in the high latitude regions dictate that the Coast Guard acquire material solutions to close the capability gaps.... To meet the Coast Guard mission functional requirement, the Coast Guard icebreaking fleet must be capable of supporting the following missions: • Arctic North Patrol. Continuous multimission icebreaker presence in the Arctic. • Arctic West Science. Spring and summer science support in the Arctic. • Antarctic, McMurdo Station resupply. Planned deployment for break-in, supply ship escort, and science support. This mission, conducted in the Antarctic summer, also requires standby icebreaker support for backup in the event the primary vessel cannot complete the mission. • Thule Air Base Resupply and Polar Region Freedom of Navigation Transits. Provide vessel escort operations in support of the Military Sealift Command’s Operation Pacer Goose; then complete any Freedom of Navigation exercises in the region.

www.npeo-kmi.com

In addition, the joint Naval Operations Concept establishes the following mission requirements: • Assured access and assertion of U.S. policy in the polar regions. The current demand for this mission requires continuous icebreaker presence in both polar regions. Considering these missions, the analysis yields the following findings: • The Coast Guard requires three heavy and three medium icebreakers to fulfill its statutory missions. These icebreakers are necessary to (1) satisfy Arctic winter and transition season demands and (2) provide sufficient capacity to also execute summer missions. Single-crewed icebreakers have sufficient capacity for all current and expected statutory missions. Multiple crewing provides no advantage because the number of icebreakers required is driven by winter and shoulder season requirements. Future use of multiple or augmented crews could provide additional capacity needed to absorb mission growth. • The Coast Guard requires six heavy and four medium icebreakers to fulfill its statutory missions and maintain the continuous presence requirements of the Naval Operations Concept. Consistent with current practice, these icebreakers are single-crewed and homeported in Seattle, Wash. • Applying crewing and home porting alternatives reduces the overall requirement to four heavy and two medium icebreakers. This assessment of non-material solutions shows that the reduced number of icebreakers can be achieved by having all vessels operate with multiple crews and two of the heavy icebreakers homeporting in the southern hemisphere. Leasing was also considered as a nonmaterial solution. While there is no dispute that the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet is in need of recapitalization, the decision to acquire this capability through purchase of new vessels, reconstruction of existing ships, or commercial lease of suitable vessels must be resolved to provide the best value to the taxpayer. The multimission nature of the Coast Guard may provide opportunities to conduct some subset of its missions with non-government-owned vessels. However, serious consideration must be given to the fact that the inherently governmental missions of the Coast Guard must be performed using governmentowned and operated vessels. An interpretation of the national policy is needed to determine the resource level that best supports the nation’s interests.... The existing icebreaker capacity, two inoperative heavy icebreakers and an operational medium icebreaker, does not represent a viable capability to the federal government. The time needed to augment this capability is on the order of 10 years. At that point, around 2020, the heavy icebreaking capability bridging strategy expires.69 At a July 27, 2011 hearing on U.S. economic interests in the Arctic before the Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard subcommittee of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, the following exchange occurred: SENATOR OLYMPIA J. SNOWE: On the high latitude study, do you agree with—and those—I would like to also hear from you, Admiral Titley, as well, on these requirements in terms of Coast Guard vessels

February 3, 2015

as I understand it, they want to have—I guess, it was a three medium icebreakers. Am in correct in saying that? Three medium icebreakers. ADMIRAL ROBERT PAPP, COMMANDANT OF THE COAST GUARD: I agree with the mission analysis and as you look at the requirements for the things that we might do up there, if it is in the nation’s interest, it identifies a minimum requirement for three heavy icebreakers and three medium icebreakers and then if you want a persistent presence up there, it would require—and also doing things such as breaking out (inaudible) and other responsibilities, then it would take up to a maximum six heavy and four medium. SNOWE: Right. Do you agree with that? PAPP: If we were to be charged with carrying out those full responsibilities, yes, ma’am. Those are the numbers that you would need to do it. SNOWE: Admiral Titley, how would you respond to the high latitude study and has the Navy conducted its own assessment of its capability? REAR ADMIRAL DAVID TITLEY, OCEANORGRAPHER AND NAVIGATOR OF THE NAVY: Ma’am, we are in the process right now of conducting what we call a capabilities based assessment that will be out in the summer of this year. We are getting ready to finish that—the Coast Guard has been a key component of the Navy’s task force on climate change, literally since day one when the Chief of Naval Operations set this up, that morning, we had the Coast Guard invited as a member of our executive steering committee. So we have been working very closely with the Coast Guard, with the Department of Homeland Security, and I think Admiral Papp—said it best as far as the specific comments on the high latitude study but we have been working very closely with the Coast Guard.70 January 2011 DHS Office of Inspector General Report A January 2011 report on the Coast Guard’s polar icebreakers from the DHS Office of the Inspector General stated: The Coast Guard does not have the necessary budgetary control over its [polar] icebreakers, nor does it have a sufficient number of icebreakers to accomplish its missions in the polar regions. Currently, the Coast Guard has only one operational [polar] icebreaker [i.e., Healy], making it necessary for the United States to contract with foreign nations to perform scientific, logistical, and supply activities. Without the necessary budgetary control and a sufficient number of icebreaking assets, the Coast Guard will not have the capability to perform all of its missions, will lose critical icebreaking expertise, and may be beholden to foreign nations to perform its statutory missions. The Coast Guard should improve its strategic approach to ensure that it has the long-term icebreaker capabilities needed to support Coast Guard missions and other national interests in the Arctic and Antarctic regions.71 Regarding current polar icebreaking capabilities for performing Arctic missions, the report states:

Arctic Missions Not Being Met Requesting Agency

Missions Not Being Met

United States • Coast Guard • • NASA

NOAA and NSF

Fisheries enforcement in Bering Sea to prevent foreign fishing in U.S. waters and overfishing Capability to conduct search and rescue in Beaufort Sea for cruise line and natural resource exploration ships Future missions not anticipated to be met: 2010 Arctic Winter Science Deployment

Winter access to the Arctic to conduct oceanography and study Arctic currents and how they relate to regional ice cover, climate, and biology Winter research

Department of Defense Assured access to ice-impacted waters through a persistent icebreaker presence in the Arctic and Antarctic72

The report also states: Should the Coast Guard not obtain funding for new icebreakers or major service life extensions for its existing icebreakers with sufficient lead-time, the United States will have no heavy icebreaking capability beyond 2020 and no polar icebreaking capability of any kind by 2029. Without the continued use of icebreakers, the United States will lose its ability to maintain a presence in the polar regions, the Coast Guard’s expertise to perform ice operations will continue to diminish, and missions will continue to go unmet.73 Regarding current polar icebreaking capabilities for performing Antarctic missions, the report states: The Coast Guard needs additional icebreakers to accomplish its missions in the Antarctic. The Coast Guard has performed the McMurdo Station resupply in Antarctica for decades, but with increasing difficulty in recent years. The Coast Guard’s two heavyduty icebreakers [i.e., Polar Star and Polar Sea] are at the end of their service lives, and have become less reliable and increasingly costly to keep in service…. In recent years, the Coast Guard has found that ice conditions in the Antarctic have become more challenging for the resupply of McMurdo Station. The extreme ice conditions have necessitated the use of foreign vessels to perform the McMurdo break-in…. As ice conditions continue to change around the Antarctic, two icebreakers are needed for the McMurdo break-in and resupply mission. Typically, one icebreaker performs the break-in and the other remains on standby. Should the first ship become stuck in the ice or should the ice be too thick for one icebreaker to complete the mission, the Coast Guard deploys the ship on standby. Since the Polar Sea and Polar Star are not currently in service, the Coast Guard has no icebreakers capable of performing this mission. [The table below] outlines the missions that will not be met without operational heavy-duty icebreakers.

The Coast Guard’s icebreaking resources are unlikely to meet future demands. [The table below] outlines the missions that Coast Guard is unable to meet in the Arctic with its current icebreaking resources.

February 3, 2015

www.npeo-kmi.com

sion urges the president and Congress to commit to replacing the nation’s two polar class icebreakers.77

Arctic Missions Not Being Met Requesting Agency

Missions Not Being Met

NSF Missions not anticipated to be met: 2010-2011 Operation Deep Freeze – McMurdo Station Resupply Department of State

Additional inspections of foreign facilities in Antarctica to enforce the Antarctic Treaty and ensure facilities’ environment compliance74

The report’s conclusion and recommendations were as follows: Conclusion With an aging fleet of three icebreakers, one operational and two beyond their intended 30-year service life, the Coast Guard is at a critical crossroads in its Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade and Acquisition Program. It must clarify its mission requirements and, if the current mission requirements remain, the Coast Guard must determine the best method for meeting these requirements in the short and long term. Recommendations We recommend that the Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security, and Stewardship: Recommendation #1: Request budgetary authority for the operation, maintenance and upgrade of its icebreakers. Recommendation #2: In coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, request clarification from Congress to determine whether Arctic missions should be performed by Coast Guard assets or contracted vessels. Recommendation #3: In coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, request clarification from Congress to determine whether Antarctic missions should be performed by Coast Guard assets or contracted vessels. Recommendation #4: Conduct the necessary analysis to determine whether the Coast Guard should replace or perform service-life extensions on its two existing heavy-duty icebreaking ships. Recommendation #5: Request appropriations necessary to meet mission requirements in the Arctic and Antarctic.75 The report states that The Coast Guard concurred with all five of the recommendations and is initiating corrective actions. We consider the recommendations open and unresolved. The Coast Guard provided information on some of its ongoing projects that will address the program needs identified in the report.76 2010 U.S. Arctic Research Commission Report A May 2010 report from the U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC) on goals and objectives for Arctic research for 2009 to 2010 stated: To have an effective Arctic research program, the United States must invest in human capital, research platforms and infrastructure, including new polar class icebreakers, and sustained sea, air, land, space and social observing systems…. The commis-

www.npeo-kmi.com

2007 National Research Council Report A 2007 National Research Council (NRC) report, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of U.S. Needs, assessed roles and future needs for Coast Guard polar icebreakers.78 The study was required by report language accompanying the FY05 DHS appropriations act (H.R. 4567/P.L. 108-334).79 The study was completed in 2006 and published in 2007. Some sources refer to the study as the 2006 NRC report. The report made the following conclusions and recommendations: Based on the current and future needs for icebreaking capabilities, the [study] committee concludes that the nation continues to require a polar icebreaking fleet that includes a minimum of three multimission ships [like the Coast Guard’s three current polar icebreakers] and one single-mission [research] ship [like Palmer]. The committee finds that although the demand for icebreaking capability is predicted to increase, a fleet of three multimission and one single-mission icebreakers can meet the nation’s future polar icebreaking needs through the application of the latest technology, creative crewing models, wise management of ice conditions, and more efficient use of the icebreaker fleet and other assets. The nation should immediately begin to program, design, and construct two new polar icebreakers to replace the Polar Star and Polar Sea. Building only one new polar icebreaker is insufficient for several reasons. First, a single ship cannot be in more than one location at a time. No matter how technologically advanced or efficiently operated, a single polar icebreaker can operate in the polar regions for only a portion of any year. An icebreaker requires regular maintenance and technical support from shipyards and industrial facilities, must reprovision regularly, and has to affect periodic crew changeouts. A single icebreaker, therefore, could not meet any reasonable standard of active and influential presence and reliable, at-will access throughout the polar regions. A second consideration is the potential risk of failure in the harsh conditions of polar operations. Despite their intrinsic robustness, damage and system failure are always a risk and the U.S. fleet must have enough depth to provide backup assistance. Having only a single icebreaker would necessarily require the ship to accept a more conservative operating profile, avoiding more challenging ice conditions because reliable assistance would not be available. A second capable icebreaker, either operating elsewhere or in homeport, would provide ensured backup assistance and allow for more robust operations by the other ship. From a strategic, longer-term perspective, two new Polar-class icebreakers will far better position the nation for the increasing challenges emerging in both polar regions. A second new ship would allow the U.S. Coast Guard to reestablish an active patrol presence in U.S. waters north of Alaska to meet statutory responsibilities that will inevitably derive from increased human activity, economic development, and environmental change. It would allow response to emergencies such as search-and-rescue cases, pollution incidents, and assistance to ships threatened with grounding or damage by ice. Moreover, a second new ship will leverage the possibilities for simultaneous operations in widely disparate geographic areas (e.g., concurrent operations in the Arctic and

February 3, 2015

Antarctic), provide more flexibility for conducting Antarctic logistics (as either the primary or the secondary ship for the McMurdo break-in), allow safer multiple-ship operations in the most demanding ice conditions, and increase opportunities for international expeditions. Finally, an up-front decision to build two new polar icebreakers will allow economies in the design and construction process and provide a predictable cost reduction for the second ship…. The [study] committee finds that both operations and maintenance of the polar icebreaker fleet have been underfunded for many years, and the capabilities of the nation’s icebreaking fleet have diminished substantially. Deferred long-term maintenance and failure to execute a plan for replacement or refurbishment of the nation’s icebreaking ships have placed national interests in the polar regions at risk. The nation needs the capability to operate in both polar regions reliably and at will. Specifically, the committee recommends the following: • The United States should continue to project an active and influential presence in the Arctic to support its interests. This requires U.S. government polar icebreaking capability to ensure year-round access throughout the region. • The United States should continue to project an active and influential presence in the Antarctic to support its interests. The nation should reliably control sufficient icebreaking capability to break a channel into and ensure the maritime resupply of McMurdo Station. • The United States should maintain leadership in polar research. This requires icebreaking capability to provide access to the deep Arctic and the ice-covered waters of the Antarctic. • National interests in the polar regions require that the United States immediately program, budget, design and construct two new polar icebreakers to be operated by the U.S. Coast Guard. • To provide continuity of U.S. icebreaking capabilities, the Polar Sea should remain mission capable and the Polar Star should remain available for reactivation until the new polar icebreakers enter service. • The U.S. Coast Guard should be provided sufficient operations and maintenance budget to support an increased, regular, and influential presence in the Arctic. Other agencies should reimburse incremental costs associated with directed mission tasking. • Polar icebreakers are essential instruments of U.S. national policy in the changing polar regions. To ensure adequate national icebreaking capability into the future, a Presidential Decision Directive should be issued to clearly align agency responsibilities and budgetary authorities.80

February 3, 2015

The Coast Guard stated in 2008 that it “generally supports” the NRC report, and that the Coast Guard “is working closely with interagency partners to determine a way forward with national polar policy that identifies broad U.S. interests and priorities in the Arctic and Antarctic that will ensure adequate maritime presence to further these interests. Identification and prioritization of U.S. national interests in these regions should drive development of associated USCG [U.S. Coast Guard] capability and resource requirements.” The Coast Guard also stated: “Until those broad U.S. interests and priorities are identified, the current USG [U.S. government] polar icebreaking fleet should be maintained in an operational status. Ronald O’Rourke is a specialist in naval affairs for the Congressional Research Service. This is an edited version of his report. End Notes 1.

The nine missions supported by polar ice operations are search and rescue; maritime safety; aids to navigation; ice operations; marine environmental protection; living marine resources; other law enforcement (protect the exclusive economic zone [EEZ]); ports, waterways and costal security; and defense readiness. The two missions not supported by polar ice operations are illegal drug interdiction and undocumented migrant interdiction. (Department of Homeland Security, Polar Icebreaking Recapitalization Project Mission Need Statement, Version 1.0, approved by DHS June 28, 2013, p. 10.) This passage, beginning with “The roles of…”, originated in an earlier iteration of this CRS report and was later transferred by GAO with minor changes to Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:]Efforts to Identify Arctic Requirements Are Ongoing, but More Communication about Agency Planning Efforts Would Be Beneficial, GAO-10 870, September 2010, p. 53. For more on changes in the Arctic due to diminishment of Arctic ice, see CRS Report R41153, Changes in the Arctic:

www.npeo-kmi.com

5. 6.

10.

11. 12. 13.

14. 15.

Background and Issues for Congress, coordinated by Ronald O’Rourke. National Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington, 2007, pp. 6-7, 14, 63. Cid Standifer, “Adm. Papp: Coast Guard Still Needs Icebreakers For Winter, Antarctic,” Inside the Navy, April 18, 2011. United States Coast Guard Arctic Strategy, Washington, May 2013, p. 35; accessed May 24, 2013, at http://www.uscg.mil/ seniorleadership/DOCS/CG_Arctic_Strategy.pdf. The designation WAGB means Coast Guard icebreaker. More specifically, W means Coast Guard ship, A means auxiliary, G means miscellaneous purpose, and B means icebreaker. By comparison, the Coast Guard’s new National Security Cutters—its new high-endurance cutters—are about 418 feet long and displace roughly 4,000 tons. Source for July 1, 2006, date: U.S. Coast Guard email to CRS on February 22, 2008. The Coast Guard’s official term for caretaker status is “In Commission, Special.” See, for example, Kyung M. Song, “Icebreaker Polar Star Gets $57 Million Overhaul,” Seattle Times, December 14, 2012. Source: Email to CRS from Coast Guard Mobility and Ice Operations Division, April 16, 2014. Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Hulls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30, 2010. On June 25, 2010, the Coast Guard announced that Polar Sea suffered an unexpected engine casualty and will be unable to deploy on its scheduled fall 2010 Arctic patrol and may be unavailable for Operation Deep Freeze [the annual mission to break through the Antarctic ice so as to resupply McMurdo Station], Dec. 20 to Jan 2, 2011. Polar Sea will likely be in a maintenance status and unavailable for operation until at least January 2011…. Currently, the 420-foot CGC Healy, commissioned in 1999, is the service’s sole operational polar region icebreaker. While the Healy is capable of supporting a wide range of Coast Guard missions in the polar regions, it is a medium icebreaker capable of breaking ice up to 4.5-feet thick at three knots. The impact on Polar Sea’s scheduled 2011 Arctic winter science deployment, scheduled for January 3 to February 23, 2011, is not yet known and depends on the scope of required engine repair. (“Icebreaker Polar Sea Sidelined By Engine Troubles,” Coast Guard Compass (Official Blog of the U.S. Coast Guard), June 25, 2010.) A June 25, 2010, report stated that “inspections of the Polar Sea’s main diesel engines revealed excessive wear in 33 cylinder assemblies. The Coast Guard is investigating the root cause and hopes to have an answer by August.” (“USCG Cancels Polar Icebreaker’s Fall Deployment,” DefenseNews. com, June 25, 2010.) Another June 25 report stated that “five of [the ship’s] six mighty engines are stilled, some with worn pistons essentially welded to their sleeves.” (Andrew C. Revkin, “America’s Heavy Icebreakers Are Both Broken Down,” Dot Earth (New York Times blog), June 25, 2010.) Source: October 17, 2011, email to CRS from Coast Guard Congressional Affairs office. HII was previously owned by Northrop Grumman, during

www.npeo-kmi.com

which time it was known as Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding. 16. For more on ECO, see the firm’s website at http://www. chouest.com/. 17. Sources vary on the exact number of scientific staff that can be embarked on Palmer. For some basic information on the ship, see http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/support/nathpalm.jsp, http://www.usap.gov/vesselScienceAndOperations/documents/prvnews_june03.pdfprvnews_june03.pdf, http://nsf.gov/od/opp/antarct/treaty/pdf/plans0607/15plan07. pdf, http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1996/nsf9693/fls.htm, http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/usa/nsf.htm. 18. The nine missions supported by polar ice operations are search and rescue; maritime safety; aids to navigation; ice operations; marine environmental protection; living marine resources; other law enforcement (protect the exclusive economic zone [EEZ]); ports, waterways and costal security; and defense readiness. The two missions not supported by polar ice operations are illegal drug interdiction and undocumented migrant interdiction. (Department of Homeland Security, Polar Icebreaking Recapitalization Project Mission Need Statement, Version 1.0, approved by DHS June 28, 2013, p. 10.) 19. Department of Homeland Security, Polar Icebreaking Recapitalization Project Mission Need Statement, Version 1.0, approved by DHS June 28, 2013, pp. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12. 20. National Strategy for the Arctic Region, May 2013, 11 pp.; accessed May 14, 2013, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ default/files/docs/nat_arctic_strategy.pdf. The document includes a cover letter from President Obama dated May 10, 2013. 21. The White House new release about the release of the implementation plan was posted at http://www.whitehouse. gov/blog/2014/01/30/white-house-releases-implementationplan-national-strategy-arcticregion. The document is posted at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/implementation_plan_for_the_national_strategy_for_the_arctic_region_-_fi....pdf. 22. Implementation Plan for The National Strategy for the Arctic Region, January 2014, pp. 8-9. 23. Coast Guard point paper provided to CRS on February 12, 2008, and dated with the same date, providing answers to questions from CRS concerning polar icebreaker modernization. 24. The Coast Guard states further that the estimate is based on the procurement cost of the Mackinaw (WAGB-30), a Great Lakes icebreaker that was procured a few years ago and commissioned into service with the Coast Guard in June 2006. The Mackinaw is 240 feet long, displaces 3,500 tons, and can break ice up to 2 feet, 8 inches thick at speeds of 3 knots, which is suitable for Great Lakes icebreaking. The Coast Guard says it scaled up the procurement cost for the Mackinaw in proportion to its size compared to that of a polar icebreaker, and then adjusted the resulting figure to account for the above-described capabilities of the notional replacement ship and recent construction costs at U.S. Gulf Coast shipyards. 25. United States Coast Guard High Latitude Region Mission Analysis Capstone Summary, July 2010, p. 13.

February 3, 2015

26. Coast Guard point paper provided to CRS on February 12, 2008, and dated with the same date, providing answers to questions from CRS concerning polar icebreaker modernization. 27. Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Hulls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30, 2010. Ellipsis as in original. 28. Transcript of hearing. 29. U.S. Coast Guard, USCGC POLAR SEA Business Case Analysis, 2103 Report to Congress, November 7, 2013, p. 4. The report was accessed April 9, 2014, at http://assets. fiercemarkets.net/public/sites/govit/polarsea_businesscaseanalysis_nov2013.pdf. See also “Second Heavy Icebreaker Not Necessary Through 2022, Says Coast Guard,” Fierce Homeland Security (http://www.fiercehomelandsecurity. com), January 19, 2014, which includes a link to the assets. fiercemarkets.net site at which the report was posted. 30. Transcript of hearing. 31. Calvin Biesecker, “Coast Guard Requests Information On Heavy Polar Icebreaker,” Defense Daily, October 6, 2014. 32. “Acquisition Update: Polar Icebreaker Acquisition Project Approved For Next Phase,” June 20, 2014, accessed December 23, 2014, at http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/newsroom/updates/icebreaker062014.asp. 33. Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2014 Congressional Justification, p. CGAC& I-32 (pdf page 204 of 403). 34. Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2015 Congressional Justification, p. CGAC& I-42 (pdf page 196 of 474). 35. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Annual Performance Report, Fiscal Years 2011 – 2013, p. CG-AC&I-40 (pdf page 1,777 of 3,134). 36. Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2014 Congressional Justification, p. CGAC& I-32 (pdf page 204 of 403). 37. Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2015, Congressional Justification, p. CGAC& I-42 (pdf page 196 of 474). 38. Source: Transcript of hearing. 39. Department of Homeland Security, Polar Icebreaking Recapitalization Project Mission Need Statement, Version 1.0, approved by DHS June 28, 2013, p. 9. 40. For more on some of these other programs, see CRS Report RL33753, Coast Guard Deepwater Acquisition Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke. 41. Source: Email to CRS from Coast Guard Mobility and Ice Operations Division, April 16, 2014. 42. The potential for using leased ships, and the possible limitations of this option, are discussed at several points in the 2007 NRC report. The report argues, among other things, that the availability of icebreakers for lease in coming years is open to question, that leased ships are not optimal for performing sovereignty-related operations, and that some foreign icebreakers might be capable of performing the McMurdo resupply mission. See, for example, pages 80-81 of the NRC report. See also Jennifer Scholtes, “In Search of

February 3, 2015

Frozen Assets,” CQ Weekly, October 10, 2011: 2074. 43. Department of Homeland Security, Polar Icebreaking Recapitalization Project Mission Need Statement, Version 1.0, approved by DHS June 28, 2013, p. 9. 44. The text of OMB Circular A-11 is available online at http:// www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a11_current_year_a11_ toc. 45. See. for example, CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke. 46. Appendix J to OMB Circular A-11 states, in explaining the requirement for using full funding, that Good budgeting requires that appropriations for the full costs of asset acquisition be enacted in advance to help ensure that all costs and benefits are fully taken into account at the time decisions are made to provide resources. Full funding with regular appropriations in the budget year also leads to tradeoffs within the budget year with spending for other capital assets and with spending for purposes other than capital assets. Full funding increases the opportunity to use performance based fixed price contracts, allows for more efficient work planning and management of the capital project (or investment), and increases the accountability for the achievement of the baseline goals. When full funding is not followed and capital projects (or investments) or useful segments are funded in increments, without certainty if or when future funding will be available, the result is sometimes poor planning, acquisition of assets not fully justified, higher acquisition costs, cancellation of major investments, the loss of sunk costs, or inadequate funding to maintain and operate the assets. 47. See CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy—Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke and Stephen Daggett, and CRS Report RL32776, Navy Ship Procurement: Alternative Funding Approaches—Background and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke. 48. For more on the NSF, whose budget is normally funded through the annual Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, see CRS Report 95-307, U.S. National Science Foundation: An Overview, by Christine M. Matthews. 49. The FY90 DoD appropriations act (H.R. 3072/P.L. 101-165 of November 21, 1989) provided $329 million for the procurement of Healy in the SCN account. (See pages 77 and 78 of H.Rept. 101-345 of November 13, 1989). The NDSF was created three years later, in FY93, as a fund for procuring DoD sealift ships, among other purposes, and since FY01 has been used to fund Navy auxiliary ships as well. 50. For more on Deepwater acquisition programs and the LCS and LPD-17 programs, see CRS Report RL33753, Coast Guard Deepwater Acquisition Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke; CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke; and CRS Report RL34476, Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke. 51. Transcript of hearing.

www.npeo-kmi.com

52. 53. 54. 55. 56.

57.

58.

59. 60.

61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

66. 67. 68.

69. 70. 71.

Transcript of hearing. Transcript of hearing. Transcript of hearing. Transcript of hearing. Coast Guard Internet page entitled “Icebreaker,” accessed April 9, 2014, at http://www.uscg.mil/ACQUISITION/ icebreaker/default.asp. See also Yasmin Tadjdeh, “Pressure Builds for New Polar Icebreaker,” National Defense (www. nationaldefensemagazine.org), February 2014. Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:] Observations on Arctic Requirements, Icebreakers, and Coordination with Stakeholders, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Statement of Stephen L. Caldwell, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, GAO-12-254T, December 1, 2011, pp. 24-25. As mentioned earlier, an August 30, 2010, press report stated that the Commandant of the Coast Guard at the time, Admiral Robert Papp, estimated the cost of extending the lives of Polar Star and Polar Sea at about $500 million per ship. (Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Hulls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30, 2010.) CRS discussion with Coast Guard officials, January 30, 2008. Kyung M. Song, “Coast Guard Makes Case to Refurbish Idled Icebreaker,” Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com), June 18, 2014. Source: Transcript of hearing. Source: Transcript of hearing. Source: Transcript of hearing. Source: Transcript of hearing. Source: Transcript of hearing. The transcript reviewed by CRS attributes this quote to the GAO witness, Stephen Caldwell, but this appears to be a mistake, as the statement is made by a member of the first witness panel, which included the commandant of the Coast Guard and the lieutenant governor. The GAO witness was a member of the second witness panel. The reference in the quote to “me and other state officials” indicates that the witness speaking was the lieutenant governor and not the commandant. Source: Transcript of hearing. Source: Transcript of hearing. Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:] Observations on Arctic Requirements, Icebreakers, and Coordination with Stakeholders, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Statement of Stephen L. Caldwell, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, GAO-12-254T, December 1, 2011, p. 24. United States Coast Guard High Latitude Region Mission Analysis Capstone Summary, July 2010, pp. 10-13, 15. Source: Transcript of hearing. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 1 (Executive Summary). Report accessed September 21, 2011, at http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_1131_Jan11.pdf.

www.npeo-kmi.com

72. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 9. 73. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 10. 74. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, pp. 10-11. 75. General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 12. 76. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 13. 77. U.S. Arctic Research Commission, Report on Goals and Objectives for Arctic Research 2009–2010, May 2010, p. 4. Accessed online December 5, 2011, at http://www.arctic.gov/ publications/usarc_2009-10_goals.pdf. 78. National Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington, 2007, 122 pp. 79. H.R. 4567/P.L. 108-334 of October 18, 2004. The related Senate bill was S. 2537. The Senate report on S. 2537 (S.Rept. 108-280 of June 17, 2004) stated: The Committee expects the Commandant to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the role of Coast Guard icebreakers in supporting United States operations in the Antarctic and the Arctic. The study should include different scenarios for continuing those operations including service life extension or replacement of existing Coast Guard icebreakers and alternative methods that do not use Coast Guard icebreakers. The study should also address changes in the roles and missions of Coast Guard icebreakers in support of future marine operations in the Arctic that may develop due to environmental change, including the amount and kind of icebreaking support that may be required in the future to support marine operations in the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage; the suitability of the Polar Class icebreakers for these new roles; and appropriate changes in existing laws governing Coast Guard icebreaking operations and the potential for new operating regimes. The study should be submitted to the Committee no later than September 30, 2005. The conference report on H.R. 4567 (H.Rept. 108-774 of October 9, 2004) stated: As discussed in the Senate report and the Coast Guard authorization bill for fiscal year 2005, the conferees require the National Academy of Sciences to study the role of Coast Guard icebreakers. The earlier House report on H.R. 4567 (H.Rept. 108-541 of June 15, 2004) contained language directing a similar report from the Coast Guard rather than the National Academies. (See the passage in the House report under the header “Icebreaking.”)

February 3, 2015

Contract Awards

January

J. Walter Thompson, Atlanta, Ga., is being awarded a maximum amount $770,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price contract for recruitment and advertising support services for the Marine Corps Recruiting Command. Task order 0001 in the amount not-to-exceed $65,709,409 will be issued at time of award. Work will be performed in Atlanta (60 percent) and Dallas, Texas (40 percent). The term for task order 0001 has an expected completion date of December 2015. The ordering period for the contract is five years. Fiscal 2015 operational and maintenance incremental funds in the amount of $60,297,382 are being obligated at time of award for task order 0001 and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with one proposal received. The United States Marine Corps Regional Contracting Office-National Capital Region, Quantico, Va., is the contracting activity (M00264-15-D-0008). Lockheed Martin Corp., Mission Support and Training, Orlando, Fla., is being awarded a $78,522,055 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract (N68335-10-C-0225) for the procurement of 29 electronic Consolidated Automated Support System (eCASS) low rate initial production units. Systems being procured include: eCASS radio frequency systems (29), self-maintenance and test calibration operational test program sets (14), calibration equipment kits (12), shore installation kits (29), ship installation kits (6), test program sets development suites (5), high power mission equipment kits (MEKs) (7), electrooptic MEKs (21) and production assets (1). Work will be performed in Orlando, Fla. (30 percent); Hunt Valley, Md. (28 percent); North Reading, Mass. (14 percent); Irvine, Calif. (10 percent); San Diego, Calif. (8 percent); Austin, Texas (5 percent); Minneapolis, Minn. (2 per-

February 3, 2015

cent); Bohemia, N.Y. (1 percent); Everett, Wash. (1 percent) and Woodstock, N.Y. (1 percent), and is expected to be completed in July 2017. Fiscal 2015 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $78,522,055 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, N.J., is the contracting activity. Bell Boeing Joint Project Office, Amarillo, Texas, is being awarded an $18,931,794 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed fee, firm-fixed-price contract (N0001913-C-0021) to exercise an option for four V-22 Block A to B (50-69) series upgrade kits. Work will be performed in Cherry Point, N.C., and is expected to be completed in May 2016. Fiscal 2015 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $18,931,794 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air System Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity. Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $10,000,000 ceiling priced modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract (N00019-02-C-3002) to redesign, test and certify the F-35 Ground Based Data Security Assembly Receptacle. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (51 percent) and Orlando, Fla. (49 percent), and is expected to be completed in April 2016. Fiscal 2015 research, development, test and evaluation (Air Force) funds in the amount of $4,900,000 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity. Ameresco Inc., Columbia, Md., is being awarded a $7,056,587 firmfixed-price contract for the design and construction of the megawatt combined heat and power microtur-

bine plant, at Camp Barrett, Marine Corps Base Quantico. The work to be performed provides for a more reliable, secure, energy efficient and cost effective solution to providing hightemperature hot water and electricity to Camp Barrett facilities. Work will be performed in Quantico, Va., and is expected to be completed by September 2016. Fiscal 2013 military construction (Defense) contract funds in the amount of $7,056,587 are being obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with 14 proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N4008015-C-0001). BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair, Norfolk, Va., is being awarded a $6,976,389 firm-fixed-price contract for 43-calendar-day shipyard availability for the Mid Term Availability of USNS Leroy Grumman (T-AO 195). Work will include clean and gas free tanks, voids, cofferdams and spaces, steel RAS (replenishment at sea) and FAS (fuel at sea) Kingpost Brackets, miscellaneous steel & 01 Level Expansion Joint, ultrasonic thickness hull, port and starboard main engine 12k overhaul, marine sanitation device system flush, replace steering differential box and saddle winch and motor overhauls. The contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the total contract value to $7,147,109. Work will be performed in Norfolk, Va., and is expected to be completed by April 12, 2015. Fiscal 2015 maintenance and repair funds in the amount of $6,976,389 will be obligated at the time of award, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured, with proposals solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with three offers received. The Navyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Military Sealift Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N32205-15-C-1001).

www.npeo-kmi.com

Compiled by KMIâ&#x20AC;&#x2C6;Media Group staff

January

Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a $139,249,010 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-14-C-0075) to exercise an option for the procurement of 100 Tomahawk Block IV All-Up-Round missiles. Work will be performed in Tucson, (32 percent); Camden, Ark., (11 percent); Ogden, Utah, (8 percent); Anniston, Ala., (4 percent); Glenrothes, Scotland (4 percent); Minneapolis, Minn., (4 percent); Fort Wayne, Ind., (4 percent); Spanish Fork, Utah (3 percent); Vergennes, Vt., (3 percent); Ontario, Calif., (3 percent); El Segundo, Calif., (2 percent); Westminster, Colo., (2 percent); Walled Lake, Mich., (2 percent); Middletown, Conn.,

(2 percent); Berryville, Ark., (2 percent); Huntsville, Ala., (1 percent); Dallas, Texas, (1 percent); Farmington, N.M., (.2 percent); and various locations inside and outside the Continental United States (11.8 percent), and is expected to be completed in August 2017. Fiscal 2015 weapons procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $139,249,010 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity. Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $10,581,620 modification to the previously awarded

cost-plus-incentive-fee contract (N00019-11-C-0083) in support of the F-35 Lightning II low rate initial production (LRIP) Lot VI for the government of Italy. This modification provides for the F-35 Italian National Database, including a Database Generation System to support delivery of the first Italian full mission simulator. Work will be performed in Turin, Italy (80 percent) and Orlando, Fla., (20 percent), and is expected to be completed in April 2017. International partner funds in the amount of $10,581,620 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

Rolls-Royce Corp., Indianapolis, Ind., is being awarded an $87,712,436 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N0001912-C-0007) to exercise an option for the procurement of 38 AE1107C engines in support of the MV-22 aircraft for the United States Marine Corps. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, and is expected to be completed in December 2016. Fiscal 2015 aircraft pro-

curement (Navy) funds in the amount of $87,712,436 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity. Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, San Diego, Calif., has been awarded a maximum $18,293,224 firm-fixed-price contract for auxiliary aircraft power units. This contract was

a sole-source acquisition. This contract has a two-year base with no option periods. The location of performance is California, with an October 27, 2017 performance completion date. The using military service is Navy. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2015 Navy working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation, Philadelphia, Pa., (SPRPA115-C-X022).

CoSTAR Services Inc., San Antonio, Texas, is being awarded a $10,163,830 modification under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N69450-13-D-7700) to exercise option two for regional base operations support services at Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Naval Station Mayport; Naval Operational Support Center (NOSC) Atlanta, Ga.; NOSC Augusta, Ga.; NOSC Columbus, Ga.; NOSC Bessemer, Ala.; NOSC Greenville, S.C.; NOSC Miami, Fla.; NOSC Tallahassee, Fla.; NOSC West Palm Beach, Fla.; and Marine Corps Reserve Center Jacksonville, Fla. The total contract amount after exercise of this option will be

$25,587,216. The work to be performed provides for regional base operations support services including, but not limited to, the following functions: facility investment, custodial, pest control, integrated solid waste management and grounds maintenance and landscaping. Work will be performed in Jacksonville, Fla. (92 percent); West Palm Beach, Fla. (1 percent); Atlanta, Ga. (1 percent); Augusta, Ga. (1 percent); Columbus, Ga. (1 percent); Bessemer, Ala. (1 percent); Miami, Fla. (1 percent); Tallahassee, Fla. (1 percent); and Greenville, S.C. (1 percent). Work is expected to be completed by January 2016. Fiscal 2015 operation and maintenance (O&M) (Navy, Navy Reserve and Marine

Corps); FY15 Navy working capital funds; FY15 Defense health program funds; and FY15 family housing O&M (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $5,568,683 are being obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southeast, Jacksonville, Fla., is the contracting activity. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Melbourne, Fla., is being awarded $11,655,489 for delivery order 0062 against a previously issued Basic Ordering Agreement (N00019-10-G-0004). This order is for the procurement of the development, analyses, testing and documentation of the structural and

www.npeo-kmi.com

February 3, 2015

Contract Awards

January

Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

repair concept of the Wing Center Section in support of the E-2/C-2 aircraft. Work will be performed in Melbourne, Fla. (47 percent); Norfolk, Va. (29 percent); St. Augustine, Fla. (13 percent); Bethpage, N.Y. (4 percent); Springville, Utah (4 percent); and Melville, N.Y. (3 percent), and is expected to be completed in December 2016. Fiscal 2015 operation and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $6,856,774 will be obligated at time of award, all of

which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity. Bronze Star Apparel Group Inc.,( Service-disabled veteran owned small business) San Juan, Puerto Rico, has been awarded a maximum $11,111,611 modification (P000007) exercising the first one-year option period of a one-year base contract (SPE1C114-D-1014) with four one-year option

periods for various Navy working uniform blouses and trousers. This is a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract. The location of performance is Puerto Rico, with a January 30, 2016 performance completion date. The using military service is Navy. The type of appropriation is fiscal year 2015 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.

BAE Systems Information Solutions Inc., San Diego, Calif., and Information Systems Laboratories Inc., San Diego, Calif., are each being awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinitequantity multiple award contracts for the development and fielding of Intelligence Exploitation and Targeting Systems prototypes related to future systems or the sustainment of deployed systems. The aggregate notto-exceed amount for these multiple award contracts is $45,044,669, and each contractor will be provided a fair opportunity to compete for individual task orders. Work will be performed at each contractor’s facility in San Diego, Calif., and work is expected to be completed in January 2020. Fiscal 2015 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $5,000 are being obligated at time of award, all of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. These contracts were solicited via a multiple award request for proposals and three offers were received. The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, Calif., is the contracting activity. General Atomics, San Diego, Calif., is being awarded a $36,468,962 modification to a previously awarded contract for research and development activities associated with integrated power system power load modules to be used for electromagnetic railgun pulse power containers and for the

fabricating and testing of prototypes. Work will be performed in Tupelo, Miss. (70 percent), and San Diego, Calif. (30 percent), and is expected to be completed by December 2016. Fiscal 2014 research, development, test and evaluation funding in the amount of $6,216,229 will be obligated at time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington D.C., is the contracting activity. Oracle America Inc., Redwood City, Calif., is being awarded a $19,050,000 ceiling increase modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, sole-source award commercial contract to provide post deployment systems support for Increment 1 of Global Combat Support System—Marine Corps. This contract is currently in its first option period. If the second (final) option period is exercised, it would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $68,500,000. Work will be performed in Redwood City, Calif., and is expected to be completed by September 2015. If the second option is exercised, work would continue until September 2016. No funds will be obligated at the time of award and no contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was previously procured on a sole-source basis with one proposal solicited from Oracle America via the Commerce Business Daily’s Federal Business Opportuni-

ties website, and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center e-Commerce Central website. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic, Charleston, S.C., is the contracting activity. Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded an $8,300,000 ceiling-priced modification to a previously awarded cost-plusfixed-fee contract for the procurement and installation of hardware required to update five Prototype Block II+ Captive Test Missiles (CTMs) into a production representative hardware configuration. In addition, this modification provides for the procurement of 40 Propulsion Steering Section hardware sets required to convert AIM-9X Block II CTMs into AIM-9X Block II+ CTMs and AIM-9X Block II Special Air Test Missiles (NATMs) into AIM-9X Block II+ NATMs. Work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz. (53.5 percent); Rocket Center, W. Va. (29.6 percent); Amesbury, Mass. (7.50 percent); Chatsworth, Calif. (5.80 percent); Tacoma, Wash. (3 percent) and various locations within the continental United States (.60 percent), and is expected to be completed in June 2016. Fiscal 2014 weapons procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $2,950,000 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

February 3, 2015

www.npeo-kmi.com

Defense Innovations

Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

Low-Profile Cargo Handling System

Underwater Vehicle Simulation

The Boeing Company Country of origin: USA Language: English Aircraft have different spaces and areas. Some of the areas may be cargo areas for carrying cargo. Cargo areas may be on the main deck or on the lower deck of the aircraft. While an aircraft is on the ground, the cargo area may be unloaded and loaded. Existing cargo conveyance systems used in aircraft may be installed on top of the floor of the cargo area. The roller systems may be mounted on axles in a track channel, or tray, that rests on the floor of the compartment. The upper surface of the rollers, where the cargo will contact, may extend 2’”‘ to 3”‘‘ above the cargo floor. Since the cargo area may have a fixed height, the height of the cargo to be loaded may be restricted and the overall useable volume of the cargo compartment may be reduced. Current cargo conveyance systems may incorporate several roller trays in a cargo compartment. The roller trays may be oriented along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. In addition, transverse trays with balls may be present in a cargo doorway area. The balls may be metal and freely rotating. Freely rotating may be defined as rotating in any direction and around any axis. Existing commercial cargo handling systems allow the loading of standard or non-standard cargo containers, palletized cargo or special equipment. Some applications, such as fuselage-mounted auxiliary fuel tanks, may be loaded or unloaded during maintenance. These fuselagemounted auxiliary fuel tanks may increase the amount of fuel that can be carried but are limited in volume by the restrictions imposed by existing cargo conveyance systems. Increasing the amount of fuel carried may be used to increase the range of an aircraft or increase the amount of fuel that can be offloaded by a tanker aircraft. This design relates generally to a cargo handling system and, in particular, to a low-profile cargo conveyance system. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to a method and apparatus for allowing the loading of taller cargo into a cargo area on an aircraft and increasing the cargo area volume compared to current cargo conveyance systems. 10 drawings

U.S. Navy Country of Origin: USA Language of Origin: English Daily global ocean forecasts that include a four-dimensional (4-D) (latitude, longitude, depth and time) estimation of ocean currents can be generated. An approach taken for the estimation of vehicle position over time is to start with a known position from infrequent fixes (global positioning system (GPS), ultra-short baseline (USBL), terrain-based, etc.) and use the vector sum of the vehicle velocity (heading and speed through the water) with the forecast current. Validation of this approach can be accomplished using log data that was received from underwater gliders which provides GPS positions at each dive and surfacing point. An underwater glider propels itself using a buoyancy engine and wings that create lift to produce horizontal motion. From a vehicle motion modeling perspective, an underwater glider must have vertical motion to move horizontally. Since underwater gliders do not use engines for propulsion, they generally have substantial endurance suitable for ocean sampling, underwater plume tracking and sustained surveillance. However, these vessels are slow, with sustained horizontal speeds typically below 0.5 m/s, and navigating them is challenging, as ocean currents can exceed 2 m/s. The Naval Coastal Ocean Model (NCOM) was developed to generate daily global ocean forecasts predicting temperature, salinity and currents. Figures 1 and 2 show representative current forecasts during underwater glider deployment exercises. In these figures, color 303 represents current speed in m/s and arrows 301 indicate the current direction. Figure 1 shows the current at the surface with speeds as great as 0.8 m/s. Figure 2 shows the current at 1000 m, the maximum depth of the glider dives, where the speed is predominately below 0.02 m/s. Position estimation for underwater vehicles operating in the open ocean can be problematic with existing technologies. Using GPS can require the vehicle to surface periodically, which poses a potential navigation hazard and subjects the vehicle to the faster currents near the surface. Inertial systems can be ineffective without the use of Doppler Velocity Logs (DVL) whose ranges can be too limited for deep ocean operation unless the vehicle is very near the seafloor. Surface- or bottommounted transponder systems can be expensive to deploy and restrict the geographic area that the vehicle can operate in. A ship equipped with a USBL system can be used to track an underwater vehicle, which can be an expensive option for long deployments. A complication in the open ocean is that position estimation is problematic while submerged. Glider depth can be directly measured by the vehicle using a pressure sensor. Vertical velocity can be derived from depth versus time, and horizontal speed through the water can be estimated given vertical velocity, vehicle pitch angle and a parameterized hydrodynamic model for the vehicle. Consequently, the only certain position information, for purpose of simulation, is depth (as a function of time), the time of the dive and the starting and ending surface positions. In the present embodiment, the motion model can use initial simplifying assumptions, including zero hydrodynamic slip between the vehicle and ocean current and a symmetric V-shaped flight trajectory. For the simulations conducted, the maximum depth of the dive and the time of the dive can be used to compute an estimate of a single vertical velocity. Beyond this model, sources of error in position prediction can include

www.npeo-kmi.com

February 3, 2015

Defense Innovations errors in the forecast currents, hydrodynamic slip and deviations of the vehicle from the commanded heading, horizontal and vertical speeds. Variations in the vehicle commanded motion can include factors such as putting the processor to sleep periodically to save power (so heading is not strictly maintained), variations in vertical speed due to changes in water density, and other than symmetric dive profiles. What is needed is a system and method for estimating the vesselâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s position while it is underwater that improves on a simple straight-line dead-reckoned estimate. 12 drawings

Precision Landing of Unmanned Aerial Systems Mikhajlenko Sergej Borisovich Country of origin: Russia Language: Russia This design relates to methods of landing unmanned aerial vehicles and can be used when solving tasks for facilitating precision automatic landing of unmanned aerial vehicles on small areas. The method comprises landing an unmanned aerial vehicle in a recovery net, forming a circular approach area for which an omnidirectional radio-frequency radiation source is placed at a given landing point and a radio directionfinder is mounted on-board the unmanned aerial vehicle, performing autonomous approach of the unmanned aerial vehicle, using standard on-board navigation equipment, receiving signals of the omnidirectional radio-frequency radiation source and performing angular tracking thereof in the horizontal and vertical planes by the on-board radio direction finder, the data of which are used by an on-board control system to generate a command for self-guidance of the unmanned aerial vehicle towards the radio-frequency radiation source in the horizontal plane. The method comprises simultaneous self-guidance of the unmanned aerial vehicle towards the radio-frequency radiation source in the horizontal plane and flying the unmanned aerial vehicle at a given altitude upon achieving a given angle of sight of the radio-frequency radiation source in the vertical plane, switching the unmanned aerial vehicle to pitching from the data of the on-board radio direction-finder using the on-board control system, generating a command for selfguidance of the unmanned aerial vehicle towards the radio-frequency radiation source in the vertical plane, and performing self-guidance of the unmanned aerial vehicle towards the radio-frequency radiation source in the vertical and horizontal planes until falling into the recovery net, placed horizontally over the radio-frequency radiation source. 1 drawing

R U

February 3, 2015

2 5 3 9 7 0 3

C 2

2 5 3 9 7 0 3

www.npeo-kmi.com

Compiled by KMIâ&#x20AC;&#x2C6;Media Group staff

Detecting Structural Changes to Underwater Structures Lockheed Martin Country of Origin: USA Language: English Current methods of inspecting underwater structures include inspections using divers, remotely-operated vehicles (ROVs) and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). A method and system is described that can be used for scanning underwater structures, to gain a better understanding of underwater structures such as for the purpose of detecting structural changes in underwater structures and for directing inspection, repair and manipulation of the underwater structure. The method and system herein can be used to scan any type of underwater structure. For example, underwater structures include man-made objects, such as offshore oil platform support structures and piers and oil-well related equipment, as well as natural objects such as underwater mountain ranges, and can include structures that are wholly or partially underwater. Underwater structure can also include both stationary and non-stationary structures, for example, that may experience drift in the underwater environment. More generally, underwater structure is meant as any arbitrary three-dimensional structure with depth variation that may have varying complexity. 6 drawings

www.npeo-kmi.com

Fuze Safing System L3 Fuzing and Ordnance System Country of Origin: USA Language: English When launching an explosive device on a trajectory towards a given target, the device can be made safer by equipping it with a safing system. The safing system prevents the device from being armed until after it has traveled a safe distance from the launch site. The safing technique has been traditionally employed in artillery shells, for example, by utilizing a mechanical system that counts the number of spiral rotations the shell makes in flight. In this regard, the spiral rifling pattern within the bore of the cannon imparts the spiral rotation to the shell. Thus, knowing the muzzle velocity of the shell and the geometry of the rifling pattern, one can calculate how many shell rotations will take place by the time the shell reaches a safe distance from the launch site. The mechanical system simply counts those rotations and arms the device after the safe number of rotations has occurred. Torpedoes launched from submarines work in a similar fashion by counting the number of rotations of the torpedoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s propeller after launch. This counting-rotations technique is not applicable to all types of devices, however. For example, self-guided missiles, dropped bombshells and other projectiles may be launched or deployed without a spiral rotation imparted. In such devices, there is no reliable spiral rotation to count; thus, conventional rotation counting safing systems do not work. One traditional solution in such cases has been to use a singleaxis accelerometer located on the device, which by sensing motion in the launch direction can provide a signal indicative of distance from the launch site. If the trajectory of the device follows a predictable, known path, such as a parabolic arc induced by forces of gravity, a single-axis accelerometer can provide a useful distance measure. However, if the device deviates from the predictable known path for some reason, the single-axis accelerometer may be of limited value and a safing system based on a single-axis solution cannot be relied upon in all cases. A single-axis solution would not be able to accurately assess the safe distance if the device is a self-guided missile that has made a U-turn and has doubled back on its trajectory, for example. 8 drawings

February 3, 2015

Defense Innovations Underwater Laser-Guided Discharge

Autonomic Rotor System

U.S. Navy Country of Origin: USA Language: English A method for producing a laser-guided underwater electrical discharge, comprising: at time t1, firing a laser pulse having a power P greater than a critical power P.sub.crit past a first electrode in a body of water, the electrode being connected to an external power supply, the power P and a focusing of the laser pulse being configured to cause the laser pulse to generate an optical filament defining a desired electrical discharge path in the water, wherein the optical filament forms a laserionized conductive channel through the water along the desired electrical discharge path; and using the external power supply, producing a driving electric field which generates an electrical discharge at time t2>t1; wherein the optical filament is configured to guide the electrical discharge through the laser-ionized channel along the desired electrical discharge path defined by the optical filament. 9 drawings

HeliScandia ApS Country of Origin: Denmark Language: English Aircraft which can take off and land vertically with a rotating wing, like a helicopter, are typically made in a configuration with a horizontally rotating main rotor and a vertically rotating tail rotor coupled to a gearbox and powered by a jet turbine engine. The vertical tail rotor is necessary for compensating the moment exerted by the main rotor on the body of the aircraft. The tail rotor, the gearbox and the coupling of these occupy much weight that otherwise could be useful load or entail an energy saving. Aircraft are known that do not need the tail rotor and the gearbox and the coupling shafts, but have rotor blades powered by tip-mounted ramjet engines that utilize the high speed at the tip of a rotary wing. However, the ramjet configuration is very noisy and energy consuming and produces a highly luminous ring from the exhaust. Another system avoiding the tail rotor is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,702,437, where the rotor has exit nozzles powered by air-form electro motors in each of the rotor blades and where the rotor is connected to the fuselage through a yaw control system which can rotate the shaft of the rotor relatively to the fuselage. This design concerns a rotor system for an aircraft including a rotor with a rotary structure mounted rotatable about a rotation axis and supporting proximal ends of rotor blades. The rotor system comprises a jet turbine for providing pressurized exhaust gas to the rotary structure having at least one jet nozzle outlet and at least one jet stream duct for transporting the pressurized exhaust gas from the turbine to the jet nozzle outlet to cause rotation of the rotary structure by expelling the pressurized exhaust gas through the nozzle outlet. 8 drawings

February 3, 2015

www.npeo-kmi.com

Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

Beetle Craft—Aircraft with Flapping Wings Pospelov Vasilij Dmitrievich Country of origin: Russia Language: Russian This novel design of an aircraft comprises fuselage with cockpit, support wheels, wings rigidly secured to fuselage, wing ailerons, fin and stabilizer with rudders and elevators secured at fuselage tail. Aircraft is equipped with multiblade propeller with flapping blades driven by crank gear provided with two crankshafts fitted one in the other. Cranks of auxiliary timing crankshaft are fitted at 30 degrees at 0 to 180 degrees relative to the primary crankshaft. Screw blades are articulated by wide ends with main crankshaft cranks. Blade turn levers are articulated by one end with propeller blade with ends. Con-rods are articulated by one end with the blade turn levers and, by other end, with auxiliary timing shaft cranks. The latter are fitted at 30 degrees of at 0 to 180 degrees relative to the primary crankshaft. The reported effect is decreased takeoff-landing run and power saving. 1 drawing

Air-Ground Detection System for SemiLevered Landing Gear

R U

The Boeing Company Country of Origin: USA Language: English This design relates generally to landing gear and, in particular, to semi-levered landing gear. Still more particularly, the present disclosure relates to an air-ground detection system for semi-levered landing gear. Many airplanes include landing gear to facilitate takeoff, landing and taxi. The landing gear of some aircraft includes a shock absorber that is pivotally connected to a truck beam at a distal or lower end thereof. The truck beam typically includes two or more axles upon which tires are mounted. In this regard, the truck beam may include a forward axle positioned forward of the shock absorber and an aft axle positioned aft of the shock absorber. Wheels may be mounted on an axle in tandem pairs. During landing in conventional airplanes, a truck tilt actuator may position tandem axle wheels in a toes-up position or a toes-down position. The toes-up position is a configuration in which the forward wheels on the main landing gear are at a higher position than that of the rear wheels on the main landing gear. A toes-down position is a configuration in which the forward wheels are at a lower position than that of the rear wheels on the main landing gear. Upon landing, the force of touchdown causes the truck beam to rotate so that front and rear wheels are aligned substantially horizontally on the ground. Air-ground detection systems determine when the landing gear wheel or wheels touch the ground during landing for spoiler deployment, brake activation, and/or other desirable functions. Conventional aircraft may utilize air-ground detection sensors which detect rotation of the truck beam and use this rotation to determine when landing gear wheels make contact with the ground. However, this type of air-ground sensing system may not be usable with, or appropriate for, all types of landing gear. Accordingly, it would be advantageous to have a method and apparatus which takes into account one or more of the issues discussed above, as well as possibly other issues. 17 drawings

R U

2 5 4 0 0 4 0

C 1

2 5 4 0 0 4 0

Стр.: 2

www.npeo-kmi.com

February 3, 2015

Defense Innovations Reducing Operational Power and Weight of an Unmanned Aerial Device’s Payload

Efanov Vasilij Vasil’evich Country of origin: Russia Language: Russia In flight, the speed vector of the missile is controlled so that it was aimed at the target along the line of the direction vector “missiletarget,” the sides of deviation of the speed of motion of the missile is determined relative to the direction of the speed vector “missile-target” based on decomposition of the total speed of “missile-target” into two components: radial and tangential, and simultaneous evaluation of radial and tangential component of the total speed “missile-target.” The relative values of the Doppler frequencies of radial and tangential component may be either equal with each other or relatively larger or relatively smaller; at that, respectively, the stress ratios Zi will change, formed by these speeds. The reported effect is an improvement of guidance accuracy. 3 drawings

Rockwell Collins Country of Origin: USA Language: English The present disclosure generally relates to the field of radio-frequency communication, and more particularly to a system and method for increasing operational power and/or weight of an unmanned aerial device’s payload. A system for reducing operational power and/or weight of an unmanned aerial device’s payload may include a frequency detection sensor for detecting a radio-frequency signal within a first frequency range. A modulation detection and waveform classification module may be coupled to the frequency detection sensor for detecting a communication type associated with the first frequency range upon the frequency detection sensor detecting the radio-frequency signal within the first frequency range. A radio may be coupled to the modulation detection and waveform classification module for receiving and transmitting the radio-frequency signal; the radio-frequency signal may include the communication type. The radio may be inactive until detection of the radio-frequency signal, and the radio may be activated upon detection of the radio frequency signal. A system may further include an unmanned aerial device. A frequency detection sensor may be coupled to the unmanned aerial device. The frequency detection sensor may detect a radio-frequency signal within a first frequency range. A modulation detection and waveform classification module may be coupled to the frequency detection sensor. The modulation detection and waveform classification module may detect a communication type associated with the first frequency range upon the frequency detection sensor detecting the radio-frequency signal within the first frequency range. A radio may be coupled to the modulation detection and waveform classification module. The radio may receive and transmit the radio-frequency signal; the radio-frequency signal may include the communication type. The radio may be inactive until detection of the radio frequency signal, and may be activated upon detection of the radio-frequency signal.

R U

Self-Guidance of Small-Sized Missile to Target

R U

2 5 3 9 8 2 3

C 1

2 5 3 9 8 2 3

Стр.: 2

February 3, 2015

www.npeo-kmi.com

Compiled by KMIâ&#x20AC;&#x2C6;Media Group staff

Aircraft Health Monitoring System The Boeing Company Country of Origin: USA Language: English Aircraft software is typically verified and validated to ensure that it performs reliability and according to its software requirements specification. As aircraft have evolved and become more complex, software verification and validation costs have increased significantly. One solution to high software verification and validation costs is to segregate the vehicle control software into groups (i.e., flight-critical, mission-critical and maintenance-critical software) and perform a less rigorous or comprehensive verification and validation of the less safetycritical software. Flight-critical (FC) systems typically include the components and software associated with controlling the vehicle, and are the most safety-critical vehicle systems, while mission-critical (MC) systems typically include the components and software associated with a vehicleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s guidance, navigation and health monitoring functions. Although the mission-critical systems are important to ensure that the vehicle achieves its mission objectives, they are less safety-critical then the FC systems. Therefore, FC software typically receives a rigorous and comprehensive validation and verification, while MC software receives a less rigorous validation and verification. Because of this difference in verification and validation, the FC and MC systems are partitioned and communication between these software modules is severely limited. However, both the FC and MC systems monitor and respond to the status and health of the vehicle. The FC system typically monitors a narrow set of gross system and component data such as actuator power thresholds, fuel pump controller power and high-level radar operating status checks, while the MC system typically monitors a more comprehensive and higher-fidelity set of system and component data such as actuator power efficiency, radar mode performance and fuel pump outflow pressures. Improved communication between software modules of different criticality levels may therefore provide utility. 11 drawings

www.npeo-kmi.com

February 3, 2015