navy 1.1 (febraury 3, 2015)

Coast Guard ModernizationA Congressional Research Service report of options for the Coast GuardBy 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 sum-

marized 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 mis-

sion, 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 Mc-

Murdo 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

A PubliCAtion

Innovation DelivererDeveloping Affordable Innovation that Maximizes Operational Performance

Rear Admiral CJ Jaynes Program Executive officer for AiR ASW, Assault & Special Mission Programs, PEo(A)

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 per-spectives: 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 require-ments, so two years out there’s going to be a real impact on spares.

From an in-service and engineering logis-tics [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.

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?

A: For now I think we are where we are.The NAE (Naval Aviation Enterprise) is

very aware of what’s happening on the sustain-ment 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 ev-eryone’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?

Continued on pAGe 8 ➥Continued on pAGe 11 ➥

WWW.nPEo-kMi.CoM

3FeB2015

plus:• LATEST

CONTRACT AwARDS

• ChINESE LAND CARRIER

including:

Defense

innovations

FEbRUARy 3, 2015www.NpEO-kMI.COM

EditorialEditor

Jeff McKaughan [email protected]

Managing EditorHarrison Donnelly [email protected]

Copy EditorsCrystal Jones [email protected]

Jonathan Magin [email protected]

CorrespondentsJ.B. Bissell • Kasey Chisholm • Catherine Day

Michael Frigand • Nora McGann

Art & DesignArt Director

Jennifer Owers [email protected]

Ads and Materials ManagerJittima Saiwongnuan [email protected]

Senior Graphic DesignerScott Morris [email protected]

Graphic Designers Andrea Herrera [email protected]

Amanda Paquette [email protected]

KMI Media GroupChief Executive Officer

Jack Kerrigan [email protected]

Publisher and Chief Financial OfficerConstance Kerrigan [email protected]

Editor-In-ChiefJeff McKaughan [email protected]

ControllerGigi Castro [email protected]

Trade Show CoordinatorHolly Foster [email protected]

Operations, Circulation & ProductionOperations Administrator

Bob Lesser [email protected]

Circulation & Marketing AdministratorDuane Ebanks [email protected]

CirculationDenise Woods [email protected]

Subscription InformationNavy Air/Sea

is published 50 times a year by KMI Media Group. All Rights Reserved.

Reproduction without permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2015

Corporate OfficesKMI Media Group

15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300 Rockville, MD 20855-2604 USA

Telephone: (301) 670-5700Fax: (301) 670-5701

Web: www.NPEO-kmi.com

Innovation Deliverer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Coast Guard Modernization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

Submariner Fatigue-based Scheduling Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

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

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

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

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

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

Low-profile Cargo handling System

Underwater Vehicle Simulation

Underwater Laser-Guided Discharge

Autonomous Rotor System

Aircraft health Monitoring System

beetle Craft—Aircraft with Flapping wings

precision Landing of Unmanned Aerial Systems

Detecting Structural Changes to underwater Structures

Fuze Safing System

Air-Ground Detection System for Semi-Levered Landing Gear

Self-Guidance of Small-Sized Missile to target

Reducing Operational power and weight of an Unmanned Aerial Device’s payload

table of Contents

CalenDar of events

February 10-12, 2015

AFCeA West

San Diego, Calif.

www.afcea.org/events/west

March 4-5, 2015

ASne day

Arlington, Va.

www.sname.org

March 17-18, 2015

precision Strike Forum

Springfield, Va.

www.precisionstrike.org

March 18, 2015

Special topics Breakfast

Speaker: Sean J. Stackley

Arlington, Va.

www.navyleague.org

March 30-April 1, 2015

Joint undersea Warfare technology

San Diego, Calif.

www.ndia.org/meetings/5260

April 2, 2015

Coast Guard intelligence industry day

Chantilly, Va.

www.afcea.org

www.NpEO-kMI.COM2 | FEbRUARy 3, 2015

naval Strike and Air Warfare Center SupportDynCorp 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 intermedi-

ate and limited depot-level maintenance and logistics services in sup-

port 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 one-

year period of performance and is valued at up to $44.5 million. The

indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract vehicle has a five-year

period of performance, cumulatively, with a total potential value of

$93.3 million.

Submariner Fatigue-Based Scheduling ToolThe 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 Virginia-class submarines.

The validated submarine based fatigue-based scheduling tool is a follow on effort per-formed 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-specif-ic 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 oper-ational tempo for watchbill generation for sub-marine 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” compris-ing 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) cre-ate 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 submarine-specific scheduling and fatigue system as one

previously did not exist. This submarine-specific tool captures individualized fatigue-based 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 in-dividual submariners, which makes it the only software on the market that has accounted for submarine watch-stander positions while pro-viding the ability to build and redesign watch schedules in real time. Additionally, Pulsar has produced the only submarine-specific schedul-ing 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 Informat-ics, Inc.

FEbRUARy 3, 2015 | 3www.NpEO-kMI.COM

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

deployed, unmanned naval vessel that

would operate under sparse remote super-

visory control and safely follow the collision

avoidance “rules of the sea” known as

COLREGS.

Controlled only by the autonomy sys-

tem, 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.

Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous trail unmanned Vessel

Shipbuilder Acquires UUV Design FirmHuntington Ingalls Industries has acquired the Engineering Solu-

tions Division (ESD) of The Columbia Group, a leading designer and builder of unmanned underwater vehicles for domestic and internation-al 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 special-ized 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 un-manned 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.”


onR’s Electromagnetic RailgunThe Office of Naval Research’s electro-

magnetic (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 tradi-

tional 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 pro-

jectiles to rely on kinetic energy for maxi-

mum 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,”

explained Commander Jason Fox, Naval

Sea Systems Command, assistant program

manager for ship integration and testing.

“we’ve been examining potential ship op-

tions 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 concentrat-

ing 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.


USS Rodney M. Davis DecommissionedBy 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 decommission-ing 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 com-mander of Destroyer Squadron 9 were guest speakers for the decommissioning.

Several former crew members, plank own-ers, 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 command-ing 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 time-honored naval tradition, retires a ship from service through a variety of ceremonial obser-vances, 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 dedica-tion [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 na-tions in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.

“Every one of these sailors, past and pres-ent, made the personal sacrifices every day to protect our families, our friends and our coun-trymen,” 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 opera-tions at sea; and we do everything we can to make the ship the best it can be.”

For Triplett, the ceremony was a new expe-rience, 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 experi-ence,” 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 trans-ferred for dismantlement March 31.

tomahawk block 13NAVAIR has announced its intention to negotiate and award a contract for Full

Rate production 13 Tomahawk block IV All-Up-Round (AUR) missiles. The antici-

pated contract will be for one year. Contract award is anticipated for the third quar-

ter 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.


Carrier on land— the Chinese ExplanationARtiCle 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 sus-

pected 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 photo-

graph 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 same-

size 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 kan-

wa 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

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 exact-

copy 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 calcula-

tion 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 con-

duct 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 re-

mains 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.


A: One in particular is the CH-53K procure-ment side of the house. The development has proceeded; we haven’t really been hurt on the en-gineering, 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 stream-line 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, specifi-cally, 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, tacti-cal 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 deploy-ments of the P-8s when it was deployed in support of the Malaysian airliner or in cases

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 tacti-cal 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 shipboard-compatible 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 Ma-rines 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 mis-sions 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 con-figuration, 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

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 mathemat-

ics 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.

➥ Continued FRom pAGe 1

Q&A with rear Admiral CJ Jaynes


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 capabil-ity. 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 chal-lenges 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 op-portunities 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

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 consider-ing 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.


Strike Group defenderSerious gaming for serious training.By eRiC Beidel

Missiles are launched at a Navy

ship, and sailors must decide in a mat-

ter of seconds how to keep from getting

hit.

Strike Group Defender: The Mis-

sile 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, Simula-

tion, 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 man-

aged 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 af-

fordable, 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 electro-

magnetic spectrum like a true battle do-

main, as important as land, sea, air and

space. Chief of Naval Operations Admi-

ral 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 as-

sistance 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 ‘eco-

system’ 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 combina-

tion 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 recom-

mendations, 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 post-

graduate 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.

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 chang-ing mission needs. The work will also include exten-sive qualification testing to ensure that the aircraft can operate successfully in challenging environments.

“The ALQ-99 is expected to continue support-ing 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 com-pleted by June 2017.


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. Dimin-

ishment 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 ac-

cess 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.

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 non-

nuclear-powered icebreakers, with a capability to break

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 ser-

vice 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, Admi-

ral Robert papp, as saying, “we’re getting her back into service, but it’s

This Congressional Research Office report provides back-

ground 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 ice-

breaking 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.

➥ Continued FRom pAGe 1

Coast Guard Modernization


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 busi-

ness 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 mul-

timission 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


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.

Polar Star Polar Sea Healy Palmer

Operator USCG USCG USCG NSF

U.S.-Government owned?

Yes Yes Yes Noa

Currently operational?

Yes (reactivated on Dec. 14,

2012)

No Yes Yes

Entered service 1976 1978 2000 1992

Length (feet) 399 399 420 308

Displacement (tons) 13,200 13,200 16,000 6,500

Icebreaking capability at

3 knots (ice thickness in feet)

6 feet 6 feet 4.5 feet 3 feet

Ice ramming capability

(ice thickness in feet)21 feet 21 feet 8 feet n/a

Operating temperature

-60° F -60° F -50° F n/a

Crew (when operational)

155b 155b 85c 22

Additional scientific staff

32 32 35d 27-37

Sources: prepared by CRS using data from U.S. Coast Guard,

National Research Council, National Science Foundation, Depart-

ment 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 com-

pleted 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

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 lati-

tude 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 statu-

tory 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 infra-

structure and distance to operational areas provided the final

input to determine icebreaker capacity demand....

In response to the national guidance, the hLMAR was commis-

sioned 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 An-

nual 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 straight-

line 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 fur-

ther 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 ap-

pendix.


JAnuARy 2014 iMPlEMEntAtion PlAn FoR nAtionAl StRAtEGy FoR ARCtiC REGion

On May 10, 2013, the Obama Ad-

ministration released a document titled

“National Strategy for the Arctic Region.”20

On January 30, 2014, the Obama Admin-

istration 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 con-

duct maritime operations in ice-impacted

waters.” The implementation plan states the

following regarding this initiative:

objective: Ensure the United States

maintains icebreaking and ice-strength-

ened ship capability with sufficient

capacity to project a sovereign U.S.

maritime presence, support U.S. inter-

ests 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 ice-

impacted 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 demon-

strated 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 propel-

lers and a combined diesel and gas (electric) propulsion plant. The

icebreaking capability would be equivalent to the pOLAR Class

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 icebreak-

er [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-magni-

tude costs” that “were developed as part of the Coast Guard’s indepen-

dent polar platform business Case Analysis.”25

25-yEAR SERViCE liFE ExtEnSionS

The Coast Guard stated in February 2008 that performing the exten-

sive 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


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 Infrastruc-

ture 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 reactiva-

tion 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 sup-

port 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, reacti-

vation 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 require-

ments 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 ca-

pability 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 Infrastruc-

ture 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

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 com-

mercial and scientific research icebreakers that can be, or be config-

ured 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 identi-

fied 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 alter-

natives 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.”


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 esti-

mate, modeling simulation and testing (as required) to build a mod-

ern 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.


These efforts will lead to development of a formal icebreaker acquisi-

tion project, with the award for construction anticipated within the

next four years.33


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 pro-

jected 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 ef-

fort will be informed by the priorities of the U.S. Arctic Region policy.

This funding will be used to continue development of program-

matic 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.

Fy15 PlAnnEd kEy EVEntS

• 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)

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19

FY2013 8 120 380 270 82 — —

Budget

FY2014 — 2 8 100 20 100 —

Budget

FY2015 6 4 100 20 100

Budget

Source: Coast Guard Fy2013, Fy2014, and Fy2015 budget sub-missions.

issues for Congress

tiME linE FoR ACquiRinG nEW PolAR iCEbREAkER

One potential issue for Congress concerns the timeline for acquir-

ing 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 construc-

tion 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 require-

ment. 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:

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 me-

dium) 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 as-

sessing 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 ca-

pabilities, 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


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 non-

polar 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 cost-

effective 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 char-

tered Russian and Swedish contractor-operated icebreakers to perform

the mission (with a Coast Guard polar icebreaker standing ready to as-

sist 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 per-

form 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

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 re-

port 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 flexibil-

ity 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 ice-

breaking 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 De-

cember 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 op-

tions 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 fol-

lowing, 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)


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

Another potential issue for Con-

gress concerns the Coast Guard’s

proposal to fund the acquisition of

a new icebreaker using incremen-

tal funding (i.e., a series of annual

funding increments) rather than full

funding (i.e., placing most or all of

the ship’s acquisition cost into a

single year). Section 31.6 of Office

of Management and budget (OMb)

Circular A-1144 normally requires

executive branch agencies to use full

funding for acquiring capital assets

such as a new ship. The Coast Guard

appears to have received permis-

sion from OMb to propose the use of

incremental funding for acquiring a

new polar icebreaker; Congress may

choose to approve, reject or modify

this proposal.

Supporters of using incremen-

tal funding to acquire a new polar icebreaker could argue that fund-

ing this ship in a single year would create a one-year “spike” in Coast

Guard funding requirements that could require offsetting and potentially

disruptive one-year reductions in other Coast Guard programs, and that

using incremental funding mitigates the spiking issue by spreading the

ship’s cost over several years. Supporters could argue that avoiding

such budget spikes is a principal reason why the Navy in recent years

has been given permission by OMb and Congress to use incremental

funding to procure aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships,45 and

that a polar icebreaker is analogous to an aircraft carrier or an amphibi-

ous assault ship in being a very expensive (for the Coast Guard) ship

that is procured once every several years.

Supporters of using full funding to acquire a new polar icebreaker

could argue that the acquisition cost of a polar icebreaker (roughly $900

million), though large by Coast Guard standards, is much less than that

of an aircraft carrier (more than $11 billion) or an amphibious assault

ship (more than $3 billion). They could argue that OMb believes using

full funding reduces risks in the acquisition of capital assets,46 and that

permitting the use of incremental funding for the procurement of a polar

icebreaker could weaken adherence to the policy by setting a precedent

for using incremental funding for acquiring other capital assets costing

less than $1 billion.

The issue of incremental funding as an alternative to full funding

in the acquisition of Navy ships is discussed at length in other CRS

reports.47

FundinG SHiPS in CoASt GuARd budGEt oR ElSEWHERE

Another potential issue for Congress, if it is determined that one or

more new icebreakers should be procured by the government through

a traditional acquisition, is whether the acquisition cost of those ships

should be funded entirely through Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construc-

tion and Improvements (AC&I) account, or partly or entirely through

other parts of the federal budget, such as the Department of Defense

(DoD) budget, the NSF budget or both.48 within the DoD budget, pos-

sibilities include the Navy’s shipbuilding account, called the Shipbuilding

and Conversion, Navy (SCN) account, and the National Defense Sealift

Fund (NDSF), which is an account where DoD sealift ships and Navy

auxiliary ships are funded.

Table 3. Major Icebreakers Around the world (as of June 26, 2014)

Total all types, in inventory (+ under

construction + planned)

In inventory, government operatedIn inventory, privately owned and

operated

45,000 or more BHP

20,000 to 44,999 BHP

10,000 to 19,999 BHP

45,000 or more BHP

20,000 to 44,999 BHP

10,000 to 19,999 BHP

Russia 40 (+ 6 + 5) 6 (all nuclear

powered; 4 operational)

7 6 12 9

Finland 7 (+ 0 +1) 3 1 3Sweden 6 4 2Canada 6 (+0 +1) 2 4

United States 5 (+0 +1)

2 (Polar Starand Polar

Sea – Polar Sea not

operational)

1 (Healy)1 (Aiviq –

built for Shell Oil)

1 (Palmer)

Denmark 4 4Estonia 2 2Norway 1 (+0 +1) 1

Germany 1 (+0 +1) 1China 1 (+0 +1) 1Japan 1 1

Australia 1 1Chile 1 1

Latvia 1 1South Korea 1 1South Africa 1 1

Argentina 1 1 (not

operational)

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on U.S. Coast Guard chart showing data compiled by the Coast

Guard as of June 26, 2014, accessed online July 1, 2014, at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg552/ice.

asp. The table also lists the United kingdom as planning one new polar research vessel.

notes: Includes some icebreakers designed for use in the baltic Sea. bhp = the brake horsepower of

the ship’s power plant. A ship with 45,000 or more bhp might be considered a heavy polar icebreaker,

a ship with 20,000 to 44,999 bhp might be considered a medium polar icebreaker, and a ship with

10,000 to 19,999 bhp might be considered a light polar icebreaker or an ice-capable polar ship.


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 ice-

breakers 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 experi-

ence 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 experi-

enced 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 con-

strained closer to the billion dollar range in my acquisition projects

[i.e., the Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction and Improve-

ments, 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., incre-

mental 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 Depart-

ment 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 mak-

ing 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

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 invest-

ment 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 busi-

ness 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 provid-

ing 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


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 financ-

ing 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 subcom-

mittee 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 re-

port 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 commu-

nication 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 sig-

nificant 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 hu-

man 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-

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 prelimi-

nary 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 sup-

portability 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 25-

year 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 mil-

lion. 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 service-

life-extension work.

Regarding capabilities provided by each option, the new-construc-

tion 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 cur-

rently provide that support are scheduled to end that year.59

Regarding potential impact on the industrial base, repair and reac-

tivation 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 replace-

ment ship can be built.

The comment wednesday by Vice Admiral peter Neffenger is

the Coast Guard’s clearest endorsement yet for fixing up the 1970s-

era Polar Sea, which in 2012 was on the verge of being decommis-

sioned and used for spare parts for its sister ship, the Polar Star.


In an interview at a seminar on

Arctic shipping hosted by the Royal

Norwegian Embassy in washington,

D.C., Neffenger said salvaging the Po-

lar 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 retrofit-

ting 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 ice-

breakers 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 person-

nel 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 Mari-

time 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:

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

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 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


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 build-

ing 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 oth-

er 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 expen-

sive 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

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 talk-

ing 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 docu-

mented in the past and that late ‘80s analysis was re-summarizing

the president’s 1990 report to Congress which basically says leas-

ing 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 ice-

breakers 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 as-

sess U.S. requirements for polar icebreakers and options for sustain-

ing 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 high-

latitude (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 inter-

ests in a geographic area where other nations are actively pursuing

their own national goals....


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 multimis-

sion capability and intrinsic mobility, a helicopter-capable surface

unit would eliminate the need for acquiring an expensive shore-

based 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 num-

bers of passengers, cargo, boats, and helicopters. polar icebreak-

ers 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 signifi-

cantly 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.

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 mis-

sions with non-government-owned vessels. however, serious consid-

eration must be given to the fact that the inherently governmental

missions of the Coast Guard must be performed using government-

owned 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 icebreak-

ers 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 subcom-

mittee of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Commit-

tee, 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


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 re-

quirements 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 pres-

ence 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 respon-

sibilities, 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 con-

trol over its [polar] icebreakers, nor does it have a sufficient number

of icebreakers to accomplish its missions in the polar regions. Cur-

rently, 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 capabili-

ties 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:

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.

Arctic Missions Not being Met

Requesting Agency Missions Not Being Met

United States Coast Guard

• 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

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

NOAA and NSF 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 icebreak-

ers or major service life extensions for its existing icebreakers with

sufficient lead-time, the United States will have no heavy icebreak-

ing 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 heavy-

duty 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 com-

plete 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 mis-

sion. [The table below] outlines the missions that will not be met

without operational heavy-duty icebreakers.


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 deter-

mine 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 recommenda-

tions and is initiating corrective actions. we consider the recom-

mendations 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 in-

frastructure, including new polar class icebreakers, and sustained

sea, air, land, space and social observing systems…. The commis-

sion urges the president and Congress to commit to replacing the

nation’s two polar class icebreakers.77

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 capa-

bilities, 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 na-

tion 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 robust-

ness, damage and system failure are always a risk and the U.S.

fleet must have enough depth to provide backup assistance. hav-

ing only a single icebreaker would necessarily require the ship to

accept a more conservative operating profile, avoiding more chal-

lenging 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 respon-

sibilities 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, pol-

lution incidents, and assistance to ships threatened with ground-

ing 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


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 interna-

tional expeditions. Finally, an up-front

decision to build two new polar ice-

breakers 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

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 inter-

ests 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 Congressio-

nal 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 eco-

nomic 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.)

2. This passage, beginning with “The roles of…”, originated in

an earlier iteration of this CRS report and was later trans-

ferred by GAO with minor changes to Government Account-

ability Office, Coast Guard[:]Efforts to Identify Arctic Require-

ments Are Ongoing, but More Communication about Agency

planning Efforts would be beneficial, GAO-10 870, Septem-

ber 2010, p. 53.

3. For more on changes in the Arctic due to diminishment of

Arctic ice, see CRS Report R41153, Changes in the Arctic:


background and Issues for Congress, coordinated by Ronald

O’Rourke.

4. National Research Council, polar Icebreakers in a Changing

world, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, washington, 2007, pp.

6-7, 14, 63.

5. Cid Standifer, “Adm. papp: Coast Guard Still Needs Icebreak-

ers For winter, Antarctic,” Inside the Navy, April 18, 2011.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.”

10. See, for example, kyung M. Song, “Icebreaker Polar Star

Gets $57 Million Overhaul,” Seattle Times, December 14,

2012.

11. Source: Email to CRS from Coast Guard Mobility and Ice

Operations Division, April 16, 2014.

12. Cid Standifer, “papp: Refurbished Icebreaker hulls Could

Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30, 2010.

13. 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 unavail-

able 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 sci-

ence 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.)

14. Source: October 17, 2011, email to CRS from Coast Guard

Congressional Affairs office.

15. hII was previously owned by Northrop Grumman, during

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/docu-

ments/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 eco-

nomic 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 Re-

capitalization 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-implementation-

plan-national-strategy-arcticregion. The document is posted

at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/imple-

mentation_plan_for_the_national_strategy_for_the_arctic_re-

gion_-_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 moderniza-

tion.

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 replace-

ment 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.


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 modern-

ization.

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_businesscase-

analysis_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.


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 De-

cember 23, 2014, at http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/news-

room/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).




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).





Guard, Fiscal year 2015, Congressional Justification, p.


38. Source: Transcript of hearing.



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 limita-

tions 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

Frozen Assets,” CQ weekly, October 10, 2011: 2074.



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 (CVN-

78) 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 re-

quires that appropriations for the full costs of asset acquisi-

tion 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 ap-

propriations 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 plan-

ning 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, acquisi-

tion 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 Fund-

ing 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 Re-

lated 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 procure-

ment 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.







56. Coast Guard Internet page entitled “Icebreaker,” accessed

April 9, 2014, at http://www.uscg.mil/ACQUISITION/ ice-

breaker/default.asp. See also yasmin Tadjdeh, “pressure

builds for New polar Icebreaker,” National Defense (www.

nationaldefensemagazine.org), February 2014.

57. Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:] Observa-

tions 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 Representa-

tives, Statement of Stephen L. Caldwell, Director, homeland

Security and Justice, GAO-12-254T, December 1, 2011, pp.

24-25.

58. 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.)

59. CRS discussion with Coast Guard officials, January 30, 2008.

60. kyung M. Song, “Coast Guard Makes Case to Refurbish Idled

Icebreaker,” Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com), June 18,

2014.





65. 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 com-

mandant 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” in-

dicates that the witness speaking was the lieutenant governor

and not the commandant.



68. Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:] Observa-

tions 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 Secu-

rity and Justice, GAO-12-254T, December 1, 2011, p. 24.

69. United States Coast Guard high Latitude Region Mission

Analysis Capstone Summary, July 2010, pp. 10-13, 15.


71. 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_11-

31_Jan11.pdf.




p. 9.




p. 10.




pp. 10-11.

75. General, The Coast Guard’s polar Icebreaker Maintenance,


p. 12.




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 Sen-

ate 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 ar-

rangement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct

a comprehensive study of the role of Coast Guard icebreak-

ers in supporting United States operations in the Antarctic

and the Arctic. The study should include different scenarios

for continuing those operations including service life exten-

sion 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 mis-

sions of Coast Guard icebreakers in support of future marine

operations in the Arctic that may develop due to environ-

mental 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 pas-

sage; the suitability of the polar Class icebreakers for these

new roles; and appropriate changes in existing laws govern-

ing 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 Oc-

tober 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 “Ice-

breaking.”)


J. Walter thompson, Atlanta, Ga.,

is being awarded a maximum amount

$770,000,000 indefinite-delivery/in-

definite quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee,

firm-fixed-price contract for recruit-

ment and advertising support services

for the Marine Corps Recruiting Com-

mand. 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 web-

site, with one proposal received. The

United States Marine Corps Regional

Contracting Office-National Capital

Region, Quantico, Va., is the contract-

ing activity (M00264-15-D-0008).

lockheed martin Corp., Mis-

sion 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 procure-

ment 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 develop-

ment suites (5), high power mission

equipment kits (MEks) (7), electro-

optic 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-

cent); bohemia, N.y. (1 percent); Ever-

ett, 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 ob-

ligated at time of award, none of which

will expire at the end of the current fis-

cal 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 previ-

ously awarded cost-plus-fixed fee,

firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-

13-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 cur-

rent fiscal year. The Naval Air System

Command, patuxent River, Md., is the


lockheed martin Corp., Lock-

heed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort

worth, Texas, is being awarded a

$10,000,000 ceiling priced modi-

fication to a previously awarded


(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 evalu-

ation (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 Na-

val Air Systems Command, patuxent

River, Md., is the contracting activity.

Ameresco inc., Columbia, Md.,

is being awarded a $7,056,587 firm-

fixed-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 reli-

able, secure, energy efficient and cost

effective solution to providing high-

temperature hot water and electricity

to Camp barrett facilities. work will be

performed in Quantico, Va., and is ex-

pected 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 Com-

mand, washington, washington, D.C.,

is the contracting activity (N40080-

15-C-0001).

BAe Systems norfolk Ship Re-

pair, 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, miscel-

laneous steel & 01 Level Expansion

Joint, ultrasonic thickness hull, port

and starboard main engine 12k over-

haul, 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 re-

pair 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 competi-

tively procured, with proposals solicit-

ed via the Federal business Opportuni-

ties website, with three offers received.

The Navy’s Military Sealift Command,

washington, D.C., is the contracting

activity (N32205-15-C-1001).

30JAnuAry

ContraCt awarDs


Compiled by KMI Media Group staff

Raytheon missile Systems,

Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a

$139,249,010 modification to a previ-

ously awarded firm-fixed-price contract

(N00019-14-C-0075) to exercise an

option for the procurement of 100 Toma-

hawk 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 per-

cent); 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); west-

minster, 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 cur-

rent fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems



lockheed martin Corp., Lockheed

Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort worth,

Texas, is being awarded a $10,581,620

modification to the previously awarded


(N00019-11-C-0083) in support of the

F-35 Lightning II low rate initial produc-

tion (LRIp) Lot VI for the government of

Italy. This modification provides for the

F-35 Italian National Database, including

a Database Generation System to sup-

port delivery of the first Italian full mis-

sion simulator. work will be performed

in Turin, Italy (80 percent) and Orlando,

Fla., (20 percent), and is expected to

be completed in April 2017. Interna-

tional partner funds in the amount of



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


firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-

12-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 De-

cember 2016. Fiscal 2015 aircraft pro-

curement (Navy) funds in the amount of



end of the current fiscal year. The Naval

Air Systems Command, patuxent River,


hamilton Sundstrand Corpo-

ration, 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., (SpRpA1-

15-C-X022).

CoStAR Services inc., San

Antonio, Texas, is being awarded a

$10,163,830 modification under a pre-

viously awarded firm-fixed-price, indef-

inite-delivery/indefinite-quantity con-

tract (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 Jack-

sonville, 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 lim-

ited to, the following functions: facility

investment, custodial, pest control, in-

tegrated 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 per-

cent); Miami, Fla. (1 percent); Tallahas-

see, Fla. (1 percent); and Greenville,

S.C. (1 percent). work is expected to

be completed by January 2016. Fis-

cal 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 award-

ed $11,655,489 for delivery order 0062

against a previously issued basic Or-

dering Agreement (N00019-10-G-0004).

This order is for the procurement of the

development, analyses, testing and

documentation of the structural and

29JAnuAry

28JAnuAry

27JAnuAry


repair concept of the wing Center Sec-

tion in support of the E-2/C-2 aircraft.

work will be performed in Melbourne,

Fla. (47 percent); Norfolk, Va. (29 per-

cent); 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 cur-

rent fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems



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 (SpE1C1-

14-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 loca-

tion of performance is puerto Rico,

with a January 30, 2016 performance

completion date. The using military

service is Navy. The type of appropria-

tion is fiscal year 2015 defense working

capital funds. The contracting activity

is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop

Support, philadelphia, pa.

BAe Systems information Solu-

tions inc., San Diego, Calif., and

Information Systems Laboratories

Inc., San Diego, Calif., are each being

awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-

quantity multiple award contracts

for the development and fielding of

Intelligence Exploitation and Target-

ing Systems prototypes related to

future systems or the sustainment of

deployed systems. The aggregate not-

to-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 mainte-

nance (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


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. Fis-

cal 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., Red-

wood City, Calif., is being awarded

a $19,050,000 ceiling increase


firm-fixed-price, sole-source award

commercial contract to provide post

deployment systems support for In-

crement 1 of Global Combat Support

System—Marine Corps. This contract

is currently in its first option period. If

the second (final) option period is ex-

ercised, 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-plus-

fixed-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 modifi-

cation provides for the procurement of

40 propulsion Steering Section hard-

ware 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 per-

formed in Tucson, Ariz. (53.5 percent);

Rocket Center, w. Va. (29.6 percent);

Amesbury, Mass. (7.50 percent);

Chatsworth, Calif. (5.80 percent); Ta-

coma, 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,


26JAnuAry

ContraCt awarDs Compiled by KMI Media Group staff


low-profile Cargo handling System 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 fuselage-

mounted auxiliary fuel tanks may increase the amount of fuel that can

be carried but are limited in volume by the restrictions imposed by exist-

ing 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

underwater Vehicle SimulationU.S. Navy


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 mo-

tion. From a vehicle motion modeling perspective, an underwater glider

must have vertical motion to move horizontally. Since underwater glid-

ers 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 chal-

lenging, as ocean currents can exceed 2 m/s.

The Naval Coastal Ocean Model (NCOM) was developed to gener-

ate 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 navi-

gation 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 op-

eration unless the vehicle is very near the seafloor. Surface- or bottom-

mounted 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 parameter-

ized 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 simu-

lations 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

Defense innovations Compiled by KMI Media Group staff


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 vessel’s

position while it is underwater that improves on a simple straight-line

dead-reckoned estimate.

12 drawings

precision landing of unmanned Aerial SystemsMikhajlenko 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 auto-

matic 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 direction-

finder 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 omnidirec-

tional radio-frequency radiation source and performing angular tracking

thereof in the horizontal and vertical planes by the on-board radio direc-

tion 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 un-

manned 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 self-

guidance 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

Стр.: 2

RU

25

39

70

3C

2

RU

25

39

70

3C

2

Defense innovations



detecting Structural Changes to underwater Structures Lockheed Martin


language: english

Current methods of inspecting underwater structures include

inspections using divers, remotely-operated vehicles (ROVs) and au-

tonomous 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 manipula-

tion 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 experi-

ence 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

Fuze Safing System L3 Fuzing and Ordnance System


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 sys-

tem. The safing system prevents the device from being armed until after

it has traveled a safe distance from the launch site. The safing tech-

nique 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 torpedo’s propeller after launch.

This counting-rotations technique is not applicable to all types of

devices, however. For example, self-guided missiles, dropped bomb-

shells and other projectiles may be launched or deployed without a spi-

ral 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 single-

axis 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


underwater laser-Guided dischargeU.S. Navy


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 laser-

ionized conductive channel through the water along the desired electri-

cal 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

Autonomic Rotor System 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 horizon-

tally 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 ro-

tor 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

Defense innovations



Beetle Craft—Aircraft with Flapping WingsPospelov Vasilij Dmitrievich


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

Стр.: 2

RU

25

40

04

0C

1

RU

25

40

04

0C

1

Air-Ground detection System for Semi-levered landing Gear The Boeing Company


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 posi-

tion. 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 configura-

tion 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 touch-

down 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 deploy-

ment, 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


Defense innovationsSelf-Guidance of Small-Sized missile to targetEfanov Vasilij Vasil’evich


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 “missile-

target,” 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

Стр.: 2

RU

25

39

82

3C

1

RU

25

39

82

3C

1

Reducing operational power and Weight of an unmanned Aerial device’s payloadRockwell Collins


language: english

The present disclosure generally relates to the field of radio-fre-

quency 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 un-

manned aerial device’s payload may include a frequency detection sen-

sor 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 communica-

tion 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 detec-

tion 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 frequen-

cy 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 classifi-

cation 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 detec-

tion of the radio frequency signal, and may be activated upon detection

of the radio-frequency signal.



Aircraft health monitoring SystemThe Boeing Company


language: english

Aircraft software is typically verified and validated to ensure that it

performs reliability and according to its software requirements specifi-

cation. 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 safety-

critical 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 typi-

cally include the components and software associated with a vehicle’s

guidance, navigation and health monitoring functions. Although the mis-

sion-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 nar-

row 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 com-

prehensive 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


navy 1.1 (febraury 3, 2015)

Documents

antarctic ice

arctic waters

polar ice operations

antarctic research station

spares budget

polar icebreaker operations

scientific research

supporting nsf research