By Geoff Fein
With the exception of a recommendation to pursue a composite patrol boat, the Coast Guard is in agreement with the results of a study examining Deepwater assets and the service anticipates signing off on the document before delivery of the National Security Cutter (NSC).
“I have written a decision memo for the Commandant that says we ought to accept the report,” Rear Adm. Gary Blore, assistant commandant for acquisition, told Defense Daily in a recent interview.
Blore said lawmakers wanted to see the results of the Alternatives Analysis (AA) before the Coast Guard proceeded with the NSC CGC Bertholf. However, he was unsure if the language made it into the service’s appropriations bill.
“[We] would like the AA signed and sealed and a final decision prior to proceeding with our project just because we think that is good program management,” he said. “The AA was to determine if the options we had chosen for Deepwater were correct. So we’d like to sign that off before we proceed with the options we are pursuing.”
While the AA said the NSC is the only vessel that meets all the requirements of the Coast Guard, the service “did not concur with the continual reference to performance shortfalls in the Final Quick Look Report,” according to an executive summery.
“We’d like to get into long-lead materials for NSC number four, which the report supports,” Blore said.
In the final Quick Look Report, the consultant recommended moving from eight down to four NSCs, replacing them with the same number of Offshore Patrol Cutters (OPC).
However, that section was removed from the Final AA because the consultant could not justify the recommendation, according to the executive summary.
As for the OPC, the contractor said the Deepwater Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS) design was the “most attractive.” However, the Coast Guard questioned the recommendation “due to its obvious design immaturity,” according to the summary.
Deepwater ICGS is a partnership between Lockheed Martin [LMT] and Northrop Grumman [NOC].
“Research and Development Center (R&DC) recommends that the [Coast Guard] acquire the OPC by following the MSAM (management specialist) process. The [Coast Guard] should use full and open competition in order to obtain other viable candidates in order to choose the vessel best suited to meet the OPC requirements as determined by the Capability Directorate (CG-7),” according to the summary.
“They did recommend some of the paper designs of Northrop Grumman. In our endorsement we basically say there is no reason for us to adopt one of the paper designs of Northrop Grumman because we are going to run a full and open competition,” Blore said. “Northrop Grumman can compete their designs for the full and open competition, but we think a full and open competition is a better way to get to the answer on that.”
The Coast Guard also had issues with the study’s recommendation on both the Fast Response Cutter (FRC)-A and -B, Blore said.
The AA recommends the Coast Guard continue with the program of record for the FRC-B. “The only caveat there, we think it may be the only patrol boat for the Coast Guard, but we need to wait until it gets delivered so we can fully evaluate it.”
Additionally, the R&DC did not agree with the recommendations on the FRC-A, a composite hull design patrol boat.
“The [consultant] undervalued the risks associated with a carbon fiber hull maritime patrol craft,” the executive summary said.
Blore said the study examined both the pros and cons of using a composite hull for the FRC.
An independent analysis of composite hulls led the Coast Guard to reconsider the advantage of the lightweight material, Blore noted.
“We’ve done our own detailed business case analysis of composites patrol boats. We hired an independent firm to do that. It was clear in that analysis there was no cost benefit to composites,” he said. “If there is no cost benefit why would you take on the low manufacturing readiness and the low technology readiness to build a patrol boat that you are getting no cost benefit from?”
The Coast Guard felt the AA didn’t go far enough in pointing out the negatives of composite hulls, Blore added.
“In their analysis they discuss the pros and cons of composites. We absolutely agree they nailed the pros and cons of composites, but what we don’t agree on is that we think they undervalued the negative,” he said. “We think it’s a little concerning to build a patrol boat when you don’t know what its performance characteristics might be in a heavy sea.”
The R&DC recommended the Coast Guard continue with the FRC-B acquisition and not pursue a separate FRC-A design at this time.
The Coast Guard also believes that the analysis behind the FRC-B is more robust because of the responses to the request for proposals (RFP) the service has received, Blore said.
“It’s the nature of an RFP. We are getting 200 to 300 pages of technical and cost data on each of the competitors as opposed to 10 to 15 pages in the AA report,” he said. “Our recommendation is let the FRC-B play out. Let’s figure out who the contractor is going to be for that and take a look at what kind of patrol boat they deliver. It’s very likely it will meet all of the requirements the Coast Guard needs in a patrol boat. If it doesn’t, we will cross that bridge when we come to it. I think it is very likely it will.”
The R&DC agreed with the AA that eliminating the requirement for a vertical unmanned aerial vehicle (VUAV) would cause “significant loss of tactical surveillance for the NSC.”
The AA recommend Northrop Grumman’s Fire Scout in one of the alternatives, as the most likely candidate to be the VUAV for the NSC, based on everything we know today, Blore said.
“In this particular case we agree with them, but would say we’d be even a little more leaning forward than that. Again, kind of looking at the pros and cons of Fire Scout. Also, we might have had some information available to us that they didn’t have when they wrote the [AA],” he added. “We think it’s very much the most likely candidate, and short of it having an integrated radar, it meets all the requirements the Coast Guard would need.”
A separate study conducted by the Coast Guard noted that “Fire Scout’s slower speed was restrictive, while the lack of a surface search radar made it an unacceptable alternative.” However, that study noted that changing the VUAV concept of operations and adding an integrated radar would make Fire Scout a viable candidate.
The executive summary recommends the Coast Guard continue to work with the Navy and evaluate NSC and Fire Scout integration test opportunities.
While the R&DC feels that the Coast Guard should not choose a specific asset at this time, it recognizes the potential Fire Scout offers.
Blore pointed out that an integrated radar for Fire Scout has recently become a program of record for the Navy.
“It used to be Fire Scout was the program of record, but they didn’t have an integrated radar as one of their requirements. They now have a separate program to integrate a radar,” he said. “If you follow the Navy POM (program objective memorandum), they have a little bit of money in FY ’09 to do the survey and design and the majority of money in FY ’10. So we are probably only about 18 months away from seeing the Navy integrate a radar in Fire Scout.”
With the recommendation of the AA and the move to integrate a radar onto Fire Scout, would the Coast Guard consider starting an acquisition strategy for the VUAV? Blore said the Coast Guard will continue to look at Fire Scout and any alternatives that are out there.
“As you know, there are not a lot of VUAVs out there in the market that are production ready. Congress gave us a little bit of money this year to take a look at VUAV applications specifically for the NSC,” Blore said. “I think we are going to invest right now in doing every bit of research we can to identify all the various attributes we need in a VUAV while we wait for that day when there is a VUAV out there with an integrated radar. If it’s Fire Scout, we will take a look at [it]. If it’s somebody else we will take a look at somebody else. The entering argument for us is something that can lift off a deck of a NSC that has both an integrated radar and a sensor capable of identifying vessels.”
During testimony before the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on the Coast Guard on Thursday, Commandant Adm. Thad Allen said there had been an assumption both the NSC and the OPC would deploy with a VUAV capability as part of their mission packages.
“We are not going to leave anything off the table in regard to aviation surveillance associated with Deepwater. But I want to make sure as we move forward we are not on the leading edge of [research and development] and we have demonstrable first article performance before we move into this,” he told lawmakers. “I think also we need to look at implications for high-altitude UAVs and how they might be employed. We have recently agreed with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to stand up a joint program office within Homeland Security to take a look at programs like the Predator and this month we will do a prototype deployment of a Predator in the maritime environment.”
Beginning this week, there will be a joint Coast Guard/CBP Predator demo in the Gulf to do functional check flights, a Coast Guard spokeswoman told Defense Daily Friday. That demonstration will be followed by one a week later of a Coast Guard/CBP Predator demo in the Florida Straits to conduct mission flights.
The Coast Guard has also engaged in discussions with the Air Force as well, about how the Coast Guard might become involved in some of the Air Force’s high-altitude UAV operations, Allen said.
“But we’re in a period of what I would call a pause and a consolidation and moving forward carefully informed not only by the Alternatives Analysis but making sure that we’ve got technology that works when we bring it forward,” he said. “I think we need to take a look at the surveillance requirements associated with the NSC and OPC operating offshore and we need to leave everything on the table, whether it’s an open competition for a VUAV or greater reliance on a high-altitude UAV like a Predator. I think all of that needs to be considered and that’s consistent with the analysis.”
The AA did note the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.‘s (EADS) HC-144A CASA Maritime Patrol Aircraft was the “best” solution for the Coast Guard. “No other candidate can significantly out perform the HC-144A for the same cost or has equal performance for significantly less cost.
Blore noted the AA’s recommendation of the HC-144A was probably their strongest endorsement in the report.
“It’s almost along the lines of ‘we can’t imagine what else you could have built because the cost and performance equation is so strongly in favor of the Ocean Sentry…HC 144 CASA,'” he said. “We’d like to buy the next four CASA aircraft which the report supports.”