The Coast Guard has sent to Congress a revised requirements document
for new equipment that seeks to take into account the U.S. government’s
heightened need for intelligence and information.
The amended wish list, dispatched to Capitol Hill in March, also
includes an accelerated ship-construction schedule and an increase
in the size of the fixed-wing cargo aircraft fleet. “The original
performance specifications for the Deepwater contract did not include
the Coast Guard’s role as the lead agency for maritime homeland
security,” said a service spokesman.
Lawmakers, however, charged that the Coast Guard failed to explain
what specific technologies and networking systems it will need to
generate the detailed level of intelligence that military commanders
and law enforcement agencies want. House appropriators, particularly,
accused Coast Guard officials of producing a vague requirements
document that lacks explicit itemizations of future equipment buys.
The $24 billion program, known as Integrated Deepwater Systems,
was launched in 1996, but got off to a slow start and regained momentum
only after the 9/11 attacks. It is expected to deliver the first
new ship in 2007. The Coast Guard also has begun overhauling its
helicopter fleet with modern engines and other enhancements.
For years, officials have spoken about Deepwater with a sense of
urgency. “Of all the world’s coast guards, only two
countries have fleets that are older than the U.S.— Mexico
and the Philippines,” noted Vice Adm. Terry M. Cross, vice
commandant of the Coast Guard.
Deepwater is envisioned as a mix of aircraft, cutters and unmanned
aerial vehicles that are linked in a command-and-control and communications
network.
The administration’s Deepwater budget request for fiscal
year 2006 is $966 million, but that number could be slashed by as
much as $466 million if Coast Guard critics on Capitol Hill prevail
in budget deliberations now under way.
Deepwater is the Coast Guard’s largest-ever acquisition.
Just four years ago, the annual funding proposed for Deepwater was
$300 million. The Coast Guard’s entire budget proposed for
2006 is more than $8 billion, about 62 percent larger than it was
before 9/11.
Of the $966 million sought for Deepwater this year, the largest
single item, at $368 million, is the National Security Cutter.
Coast Guard sources indicated that if the cuts stand as recommended
by the House Appropriations homeland security subcommittee earlier
this month, the impact on Deepwater would be substantial, and likely
lead to delays in the delivery of the National Security Cutter and
offshore patrol cutters.
“To say the Coast Guard is disappointed in the subcommittee’s
cut of the president’s funding request for Deepwater would
be a gross understatement,” Adm. Thomas H. Collins, commandant
of the Coast Guard, said in a statement. “Fortunately, we
recognize that this subcommittee action is only a first step in
the fiscal year 2006 appropriations process.”
One official speaking on condition of anonymity said Coast Guard
leaders are confident that appropriators will restore some level
of funding in House-Senate conference negotiations in early summer.
“There are a number of innings still to be played,”
he told National Defense. He also acknowledged that lawmakers’
complaints about the vagueness in the amended Deepwater proposal
are “legitimate” and deal a serious blow to the Bush
administration’s efforts to build up the nation’s maritime
defense.
The revised Deepwater requirements document submitted to Congress
in March, like the original program, emphasizes the value of a command-and-control
network that connects the Coast Guard with federal agencies and
merchant ships. The networking capability of Deepwater, still largely
undefined, is regarded as a make-or-break technology that the Coast
Guard must have if it plans to take a lead role in U.S. shoreline
security.
“In the new requirements being rolled into the Deepwater
contract … the emphasis is on command-and-control, surveillance
and reconnaissance,” said Coast Guard Rear Adm. Timothy S.
Sullivan, military assistant to the U.S. director of homeland security.
The Bush administration’s strategy to defend U.S. ports and
coastlines is founded on the premise that military and law enforcement
agencies will have around-the-clock access to information about
potential threats, such as suicide bombers aboard ships, before
they enter U.S. waters.
“The issue is that we don’t have enough information
about who’s sailing the waters of the world, especially near
our shores, and who’s on board … Where have they been?
Do the occupants have any terrorist background? Where are they going?”
Cross asked rhetorically during a presentation to the Navy League.
“In many cases, we don’t know who owns the ship or
the cargo,” he said. The only safeguard now in place is that
ships are required to give the U.S. Coast Guard notice of their
arrival 96 hours in advance.
“We have 95,000 miles of coastline to worry about,”
said Cross.
Without real-time access to information on potential terrorists,
the Coast Guard cannot do its job adequately, he added.
“Protecting all U.S. ports would require either a large increase
in the size of the Coast Guard, or we would see miles-long lines
of ships waiting to enter the harbors, which would significantly
delay the flow of commerce,” Cross noted. “Maritime
trade is the lifeblood of the U.S. and world economy. Inspecting
every single boat is not a viable option.” World maritime
trade, he said, has increased by 220 percent during the past three
years, and 95 percent of all U.S. overseas trade travels by water.
The catchphrase “maritime domain awareness” has been
adopted by government agencies to describe the reliance on information
to protect U.S. shores from terrorist attacks. Although the Deepwater
program is expected to deliver a sophisticated information network
that could expand the U.S. government’s awareness of potential
threats, several issues remain unsettled, such as the performance
requirements for sensors, communications devices and processes for
channeling information across the command structure.
“Maritime domain awareness is not a technology issue, it’s
a policy issue,” said Shawn James, business development director
at Lockheed Martin Corporation. A team of Lockheed and Northrop
Grumman serves as “systems integrators” for the Deepwater
program.
James said that although the policies remain embryonic, “we
have technology today that can answer 50-80 percent of the solution.”
The information-based approach to coastal security is a drastic
departure from traditional practices, he told reporters. “Port
security, in general, is vulnerable … Largely it has been
just about physical security—guards, gates, dogs—but
not about situational awareness.”
Before 9/11, the captain of a ship approaching U.S. waters would
radio the port. After the attacks, the United States instituted
the 96-hour rule for ships to notify the port. “It’s
a good rule,” James said, but it has loopholes. “A ship
may be 50 miles off the coast of Alaska, but still be 128 hours
from port. It wouldn’t have to radio in, but still could be
a threat to our territorial waters.”
A senior Navy official described maritime awareness as being “all
about generating actionable intelligence, so we can go out and do
something” to prevent a terrorist attack.
Pieces of information that appear mundane—crew lists, cargo
manifests, sailing times, ship arrival times—when combined,
could help intelligence analysts assemble a reasonable case that
terrorist organizations may be targeting U.S. ports, the official
said in a briefing to defense reporters.
No single agency or military service alone can collect all the
necessary data, he added. “The information lives mostly in
the private sectors. Ships are loaded overseas.” Another major
concern for U.S. officials is to secure the cooperation of other
nations.
“We don’t want to have to do all this policing of the
maritime domain,” the Navy official said. There are many navies
out there that are as or more capable than we are.” Neither
the U.S. Navy nor the Coast Guard can be everywhere.
To assist the Coast Guard, the Navy has about 15-20 ships under
way on each U.S. coast,” the official said.
Although the Coast Guard—which reports to the Department
of Homeland Security—and the Navy operate under separate chains
of command, it is not unusual for the Navy to assign ships to the
Coast Guard for specific homeland security missions, the official
said. “You’ll see more Navy ships working for the Coast
Guard.”
The Coast Guard also is working closely with the Navy at the National
Maritime Intelligence Center, in Suitland, Md., where reams of data
get processed and analyzed. The chief of naval operations, said
the official, “has committed NMIC to be the national level
asset responsible for maritime domain awareness.”
Meanwhile, as part of the recent revisions to Deepwater, the Coast
Guard expanded its requirements for upgraded C-130 transports. The
Coast Guard C-130 fleet is composed of 33 aircraft—27 H models
and six J models.
The six C-130J aircraft will be equipped with advanced sensors,
beginning in 2007. The “H” fleet upgrades are tied to
the Air Force’s program to update the avionics of its aging
C-130 fleet.
The Coast Guard also plans to buy three C-235 coast patrol aircraft,
although it downsized future buys from 35 to 20.
Another post-9/11 decision was to eliminate the AB139 medium-lift
helicopter, in favor of an upgraded HH-60.
“Although the AB139 was initially proposed for medium-range
recovery operations, the requirements changed to include a new six-person
vertical insertion team,” said Coast Guard spokesman Jeffrey
G. Murphy. “The AB-139 helicopter was not able to carry a
six-member boarding team 200 nautical miles from a shore station
or cutter for vertical insertion or delivery.”
The HH-60 aircraft was a better choice, he added, because it’s
employed by all U.S. armed services and other government agencies.
The shipbuilding portion of the program also was modified. The
original National Security Cutter was redesigned to fit a longer,
automated flight deck, a secure command center and communications
systems. The construction of a smaller vessel to be purchased under
Deepwater, the Maritime Patrol Boat, had to be slowed down as a
result of cracks in the hull, industry sources said. Eight ships
were built so far.
Consequently, the Coast Guard decided to accelerate the design
and delivery of another ship, the Fast Response Cutter.
To date, three of the maritime patrol boats are operational “with
limitations,” while the remaining five are expected to be
operational by September 2005, Murphy said.
Unmanned aircraft also will be part of Deepwater, although several
technology hurdles stand in the way. Specifically, the Coast Guard
has yet to be assured that UAVs can operate safely from relatively
small ships, noted Rear Adm. Patrick M. Stillman, program executive
officer for Integrated Deepwater Systems. “The UAV is the
highest risk item in the program,” he said. “It is difficult
to launch and recover UAVs from corvettes and frigates.”
Several technologies now in development could help the Coast Guard
get an easier grip on UAV operations aboard ships, experts said.
Navy researchers, for example, are working on a ship motion detector
that will allow a UAV to gauge the safety of a landing by measuring
the pitch and roll of the ship.
Another landing aid program sponsored by the Office of Naval Research
models the ship’s wake. David Ludwig, a project officer, said
other areas of research seek to integrate UAVs into chaotic flight
deck operations by programming them to respond to the hand signals
used by flight deck crews. The UAVs can be programmed to use video
to recognize and respond to hand gestures.