How to Handle the Freedom: Part II
By Commander Dale Heinken, Captain Robert Butt (Retired), and Lieutenant George Kunthara, U.S. Navy
It is well known that shiphandling is a blend of art and science. The art is developed through experience, and it is the ability to intuitively take the right action when facing a multitude of dynamic factors. The science explains what happens to the ship as the result of a controllable or uncontrollable force. Once you understand the science, the art of shiphandling will naturally develop in time.
Part I of this article was a synopsis of the littoral combat ship’s (LCS) handling attributes. In Part II, we will discuss how to get a ship under way from a pier, specifically taking advantage of the LCS’s inherent ability to “walk” sideways. Two methods of “walking” have gained dominance: matched combinators or single combinator.
Matched Combinators Method
Throughout this method, both combinators remain matched (simultaneously moved the same amount of angle in opposite directions toward or away from zero) and the forward and aft thrust balance remains unaffected. Assuming the ship is moored starboard side to the pier, the aft fender is not too far from the stern, and the combinators are centered at 0 degrees and T0. Begin by backing on the port engine to a desired level of force, typically anywhere between T0 and T-5. Due to astern propulsion limitations, most of the astern propulsion occurs before T-5 with no increases in rotations per minute between T-5 and T-10. Next, adjust the starboard engine ahead gradually from T0 to about T2.5 to achieve a balanced condition where there is no forward or aft movement alongside the pier. Once this forward and aft balance is achieved, the ship has a “twist” or torque about her center of gravity that tends to move the bow away and the stern toward the pier. With the stern moving against the pier, the ships pivot point is centered between the jets and even with the point of contact with the fender. The bow should slowly move off the pier.
Once the bow movement is noticed, gradually move both combinators in the “toe-out” direction (starboard combinator to the right and the port combinator to the left). Both jets will begin pushing the stern to port in opposition to the “twist.” At toe-out 6 degrees, the sideways force at the stern is equal to the sideways force on the bow, and the stern will move away from the pier at the same speed as the bow. The result is a pure sideways “walk” that absent wind or current will keep ship’s heading parallel to the pier. This point is often referred to as the “balance point” since both the forward and aft movement along the pier is zero and ship’s heading remains constant. From this “balance point,” the experienced shiphandler can make the ship move in any direction desired with only minor adjustments.
To move the stern away faster than the bow, simply increase the toe-out angle, which increases the sideways force at the stern and ship’s head will start to move right. Decrease the toe-out angle from the balance point, nominally 6 degrees, toward zero, and the opposite movement will occur with ship’s heading tending left. By increasing the toe-out angle to 9 degrees, there is twice as much sideways force at the stern as compared to the sideways force at the bow. The resulting pivot point is approximately one ship length forward of the bow. This is an excellent method for getting the ship under way from a bow-in alignment since the bow will continue to move away from the pier slowly at about half the rate that the stern is moving away. From the bridge, the bow may appear to be closing the pier, but this is an illusion due to the ship’s heading moving right. In reality, both bow and stern are moving away from the pier. By increasing the toe-out angle to 12 degrees, there is three times as much force at the stern as compared to the bow. The pivot point moves closer, but still forward of the bow by approximately half a ship length. This can be used to quickly move away from a pier or literally to “walk” 360 degrees around a buoy with the bow constantly pointing at the buoy.
By reducing the combinator angle to zero, a twist is developed with a pivot point at the ship’s center, similar to a twin-screw ship with rudders. Continuing past zero to “toe-in” (starboard combinator to the left and the port combinator to the right) will reverse the direction of sideways force at the stern. The sideways thrust at the stern is now aligned with the torque from the “twist” as opposed to against it with a “walk.” The result is a more efficient or accelerated “twist” in the opposite direction when compared to the “walk.” This accelerated twist is commonly referred to as a “spin.” Here’s a simple mnemonic: Toe-out to “walk,” toe-in to “spin.” As toe-in is increased, the rate of spin increases, and the pivot point moves toward the bow.
To move forward, simply increase the ahead throttle slightly. To move aft, decrease the ahead throttle slightly. Decreasing the ahead throttle is preferred over increasing the astern throttle since the ahead throttle is more efficient and responsive. To walk toward the pier, reverse the port walk by simply reversing both engines, i.e. starboard back and port ahead. Another mnemonic: Back to port to walk to port, back to starboard to walk to starboard.
The Single Combinator Method
This method differs from the matched combinator method in that only one combinator (typically the ahead engine) is adjusted to control the ship’s head. In this method, there are a number of potential balance points that can be used to walk the ship sideways. The port (backing) combinator could be set at left 12 degrees with the starboard (ahead) combinator at 0 degrees, or the port (backing) combinator could be set at 0 degrees with the starboard (ahead) combinator at right 12 degrees. As long as the spread between the jets is approximately 12 degrees, a balance point can be found including the one at toe-out 6 degrees. By changing the ahead jet to either side of this balance point, you can steer the ship in the same direction as the turn. If you turn it to starboard, the bow will go to starboard. Turn it to port and the bow goes to port.
Small deviations from the balance point will have only a minor effect on the forward and aft thrust balance. Larger deviations from the balance point will require throttle movement to keep the ahead and astern forces balanced. The further you take the ahead combinator away from zero, the weaker its ahead force becomes and the ship begins to move aft. Ahead throttle must then be added to compensate for the increased angle in order to maintain the forward and aft balance. This method can be easy to remember: Turn the ahead combinator right and the bow goes right, or turn it left and the bow goes left. Adjusting one combinator at a time also gives finer control of ship’s head. However, large movements require additional throttle changes to maintain the forward and aft thrust balance. Moving one combinator changes two variables: ahead thrust and sideways thrust at the stern. The subsequent thrust change results in two more variables changing. In shiphandling, one often finds that the more you adjust or do, the more you have to do.
Either method comes down to a matter of preference. Both are effective if the shiphandler understands the science behind their actions. One of the great benefits of the LCS program is the LCS training facility with robust bridge simulators. The training facility allows commanding officers and their bridge watch teams to practice these methods or even create new ones. By the time a commanding officer is ready to take in all lines and get under way on one of these ships, they can be confident in knowing that their bridge teams, novice or veteran, are competent.
This was only one aspect of handling the Freedom-variant LCS. Hopefully, it will spur wardroom discussions, aid in bridge training, and influence others to write about handling this class of ships. Commander Joe Gagliano recently shared his LCS experience in Shiphandling Fundamentals for the Littoral Combat Ships and the New Frigates (Naval Institute Press, 2015). This two-part article and his book are only a beginning; there is still a lot to learn and share about this warship.
Captain Butt graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1976. During his career, he served on board eight ships, including command of the USS George Philip (FFG-12) and Bunker Hill (CG-52). Since retiring from the Navy in 2006, he has worked for Lockheed Martin as the lead instructor at the Littoral Combat Ship Training Facility.
Untangle the Navy’s Web Portals
By Chief Electrician’s Mate Clinton Anderson, U.S. Navy Reserve
As sailors, we are expected to get our jobs done quickly with limited resources. For some of us, however, this also entails limited understanding of the exact location of our specific requests. I have spoken with many individuals frustrated with the bevy of web services that we are required to know. They find the Navy’s web portals to be extremely confusing, having noted that they actually require considerable experience and skill to navigate. We must develop a single online military solution for our sailors.
Current Organization
Some of the sites we are expected to be familiar with include:
• Our personnel portal (Navy Standard Integrated Personnel Site, or NSIPS)
• Our action portal (Bupers Online) • Our work portal (in my case, Navy Reserve Orders Writing System, and iNavsea) • Our travel portal (Defense Travel System)
• General info (public Navy Reserve) and Navy News (Navy OneSource) Advancement info (Navyadvancement.com)
• Family info (Defense Eligibility Enrollment System and Navy Family Accounability and Assessment System)
• An education portal (Navy Knowledge Online)
• A “combined” education roster (Fleet Learning and Training Management Portal Site).
Certain accounts will become “locked” if they’re not logged into within a certain amount of time, which requires constant help-desk manning of those lines of support, ultimately hindering work progress. Additionally, this multiple-website problem can have collateral damage for the servicemember, including the loss of plane flights, not being paid on time, or in the worst case, removal from service. (I have had personal experience with all of these situations.)For sailors at a new command, it can be frustrating to not have the right tools on hand and difficult to complete tasks if no person familiar with the issue is around to give immediate advice. This is especially pertinent to new Reservists who often work from home. Subsequently, it also takes longer to complete requirements. If important news comes out that we need to know, our best bet is to bypass all of the above websites and instead visit The Navy Times website. It is time to change this mindset and see the Internet as something to be embraced, not something to be traversed.
To make the best use of our excellent online technology, we need a single place to go. If my commanding officer says, “Bring me your last eval,” I would go to that site. If my command master chief asks me when my planned rotation date was, I would go to that site. If my training officer says, “Complete this year’s information assurance training,” I would go to that site.
Unfortunately, when the goal is to make a resource that pertains to all of the Navy’s 400,000 sailors, each with different career paths, objectives, and units, it will not be easy. Several good attempts have been made to consolidate resources. A great example of this is the new NSIPS website that shows everything in an easily understood sidebar that goes several levels deep. It is not all-encompassing, but the layout is a good template for building similar sites.
Some personal webpages are promising. I recently called a Navy help desk requesting information, and I was guided to a non-sponsored individual’s website owned by Lieutenant Commander Kelly Beamsley. He has posted everything a sailor needs on his site, including all the items previously mentioned. Because his site has so much, there is no way to navigate quickly besides using a keyboard’s “find” shortcut. However, it’s impressive that one person could come up with a website that both active-duty and Reservist members are desperately calling for, on his own time. Imagine the possibilities of a system with dedicated resources, a structured database, and a team of skilled professionals.
Improving the System
The Navy should make a comprehensive information page that links the variety of sites on which we rely. Tabs can be placed on the left sidebar with hyperlinks to the most common items. The easy-to-navigate user interface could provide affordance by its layout. Advancement and rate-specific info—personalized for the user—could be on the bottom left, while education and specific training based on the user’s current command could be on the upper right. Taking advantage of the social-media front, this page could draw inspiration from the usability of Facebook and have highly customizable navigation bars. Older (non-current) pictures from the sailors’ prior commands could be uploaded and shared. Moving toward information assurance, there could be an admin section that can only be logged into by a common access card. In all, the website would contain everything a sailor could need in one spot. The theme would be simple: One site, one mission, one Navy.
Benefits of such an approach include:
Direction. A single source would guide users to the right resource in a short amount of time.
Connection. Prior and current sailors from around the world could get in touch if they were on the same boat, which would reconnect many old friends and encourage them to interact more with the system. There should be little concern for divulging personal or professional information, as much of this is already online or on social-media platforms such as LinkedIn or Twitter. As long as the information is publicly available, we could use this feature to connect shipmates.
Advancement. Sailors would be drawn to access resources as they look around. For example, because related items would be in close proximity, as users seek their specific online training they might coincidentally notice the advancement tab, which would be automatically set to the correct rate manual for the sailor.
Alerts. Commanding officers could use this site as an official platform to guide each unit member on their career path, “nudging” them in the right direction with comments every now and then. It could remind them of their midterm counseling, alert them when they are close to their planned rotation dates, and guide them through their last year before retirement. A user should be able to work on their evaluation throughout the year on this site, and tapping a simple “upload” button could submit it to their superiors when due.
Organization. The shorter wait time to complete tasks is bound to improve the morale of those members waiting in long computer lines. Additionally, my personal responsibilities in the unit could be included here, and my unit’s organization chart could be copied and viewed among similar commands. We would eventually find that these workspaces will grow to be similar as they continue to copy one another—as a Los Angeles chief I could now see what my Miami counterpart is doing.
Facility. As a Navy Reservist, I am required to log in to several sites within a time frame before I am disconnected, requiring me to call a help desk if I go over that time. However, all of these “lockable items” could be cleared once I logged into this single account. This would prevent multiple issues and the automatic tracking of “who needs what” would be critical to leadership.
There may be a sense of this article trying to “fix” the sites we rely on, but I recognize that current online resources have made great progress since I joined the Navy in 2000. My suggestion is not to “fix” any system or add yet another site; I simply propose to make all of our Navy sites more accessible, popular, and easier to navigate among users.
A dedicated resource should be uniform. Uniform regulations guide our military conduct, and a new policy states that even our clothing will be the same among genders. Uniformity has benefits such as strength in numbers, group pride, and fellowship. If the entire Navy is under one umbrella system—one military website—then emergent capabilities would become self-evident. Our Navy combat team would grow to have more knowledgeable and more communicative sailors. Every day that this system is not in place is a day that we are not using our technology to its fullest potential. If you want smarter, more motivated, more technical, and more career-oriented sailors, we need this site.
Chief Electrician’s Mate Anderson is a Navy Reservist with 16 years of service. He spent eight years on active duty and finished in 2008 as the Ship’s Maintenance and Material Management/ Quality Assurance Leading Petty Officer of the Reactor Department. This submission won second prize in the 2015 Enlisted Prize Essay Contest, sponsored by Textron Systems.
All-Domain Access on a Budget
By Commander Mark R. Harris, U.S. Navy
The Navy’s Coastal Riverine Force (CRF) was created in a 2012 merger of the former Maritime Expeditionary Security Force and the Riverine Force, and has grown into a diverse organization capable of operating on inland waters, bays, estuaries, and and now the open ocean. Recently outfitted with larger and more capable patrol boats, and with years of experience with small-craft tactics, the CRF offers the Navy a cost-effective way to reinforce fleet priorities and to promote all-domain access.
Small Craft Innovation
The CRF has retained all of the anti-terrorism and force-protection capabilities from its roots in the Expeditionary Security Forces. Every day in strategic ports around the world, the CRF’s 34-foot Sea Ark patrol boats escort U.S. Navy and coalition ships transiting narrow channels where they are most vulnerable to asymmetric attack. Aircraft security teams accompany Navy logistics flights to airfields that lack adequate physical security, while embarked security teams provide point defense for Military Sealift Command ships. As keepers of the Navy’s conventional riverine capability, platoon-size elements train annually in traditional “brown water” riverine warfare—sharpening the edge of a blade forged during the last Iraq war.
Now the CRF is applying over a decade of experience with small tactical craft and leading the Navy’s integration of larger, more capable patrol boats to support critical maritime-security functions in the littoral environment. The prototype 65-foot coastal command boat (CCB), built by Bremerton, Washington–based SAFE Boat International, was delivered in August 2013 for testing and evaluation. Equipped with remotely operated weapons, satellite communications, and able to support unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs), the CCB represents a generational leap for Navy tactical craft.
Since early 2014 the CCB has been forward-deployed in Bahrain, operated by coastal riverine forces in support of the U.S. 5th Fleet. The CCB brought the fleet a tactical, small-signature platform ideal for offshore critical infrastructure protection, extended-range high-value unit escort, intelligence collection, and a variety of missions in support of special operations forces and explosive ordnance disposal. With the ability to refuel from a patrol coastal or Coast Guard cutter, the CCB has operated over 600 miles from home port. Fitted with “skids,” it can operate from an afloat forward staging base or the well deck of U.S. or coalition amphibious ships.
During a deployment from January–August 2015, Coastal Riverine Squadron 4 operated the CCB on extended voyages to Kuwait Naval Base, Jebel Ali, and Oman. In June 2015 the CCB conducted her first ever transit through the Strait of Hormuz, demonstrating the ability to operate in critical choke points. The CCB’s size has made her a perfect fit for peer-to-peer engagements with regional allies whose fleets are similar in size. This new capability was demonstrated in April 2015 when the CCB participated in a bilateral exercise with the Iraqi Navy training on critical infrastructure protection and sharing expertise with small-craft littoral tactics.
More to Come
Building and improving on the CCB’s design, SAFE Boat delivered the first 85-foot MK VI patrol boat in August 2014. Starting in 2016, CRFs will operate the MK VI overseas, providing more of the low-cost, low-signature, unobtrusive, adaptable, and combat-ready capability. Outfitted with the Mk-38 25-mm chain gun, crew-served weapons, satellite communications, unmanned aerial vehicles, and UUVs, the MK VI will bring more capacity to reinforce fleet objectives in the littoral environment and engage with important regional partners. Like the CCB, she can deploy from the well decks of amphibious ships and go wherever this reinforcement is needed. With 12 craft scheduled for delivery over the next five years, she will give fleet commanders more options at a fraction of the cost of traditional gray-hull vessels—and in doing so will free up conventional warships to concentrate elsewhere.
Recent years have seen significant changes to strategy, tactics, and force structure to address the growing challenges of potential adversaries with anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities. The March 2015 revision to A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower (CS-21R) took this head-on, adding “all-domain access” as a fifth essential function for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. All-domain access is described as “the ability to project military force in contested areas with sufficient freedom of action to operate effectively.”1 As the Joint Force works through the myriad of costly technological innovations to prevail against A2/AD threats and ensure all-domain access, CRFs offer the Navy an affordable means to foster the regional partnerships prescribed in CS-21R: “Assuring access in all domains begins in peacetime through routine regional operations with the naval and maritime forces of our allies and partners.”2
During Exercise CARAT 2015, CRFs demonstrated the low-cost/high-impact partner-building capacity provided by small patrol craft. Riverine command boats operating from the well deck of the USS Germantown (LSD-42) trained with partner navies in Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia. During the course of six weeks, an adaptive force package consisting of just 14 sailors and two boats operated with strategic partners in platforms very similar to their own (in some cases identical), training on tactics they value for maritime security in their waters, and reinforced the U.S. Navy’s commitment to regional stability. For many critical nodes in the global-security network, small patrol craft are the ideal platform for cooperative engagement because they facilitate peer-to-peer engagement with platforms and tactics most relevant to local security interests.
The Elephant in the Room
The Navy’s most recent 30-year shipbuilding plan, The Report to Congress on the Annual Long Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2016, warns of twin obstacles facing the overall fleet size in the next decade: the block retirement of dozens of ships procured during the 1980s defense buildup and the daunting cost of replacing the Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines.3 Independent analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service, and contributors to these pages have served unambiguous warnings about the budget implications of the Ohio-class replacement program: Unless the Navy’s annual shipbuilding budget increases by billions of dollars over the historic average during the next decade, the size of the fleet will stagnate or decline in the 2020s, rather than reach the goal of over 300 ships.4
Small tactical craft are not one-for-one substitutes for warships, but they are cost-effective assets to optimize ship inventory and fleet operational design. Considered as part of a larger mission-to-platform optimization, small patrol craft like the MK VI could be used for littoral missions routinely conducted by warships, making them more available for technologically challenging tasks—especially the countering of A2/AD threats. Small craft will also prove more effective than warships at forging some of the regional partnerships needed to promote all-domain access. As Navy leadership and elected officials come to terms with the political and strategic realities of building the future fleet, one thing remains clear: The future security and budgetary environments are too pressurized for high-tech and high-cost solutions alone. We can’t afford to ignore the already proven capability of affordable tactical craft in fleet operational design. At just $15 million per craft, MK VI is a bargain, and its impact must be fully leveraged to support Navy and fleet commander objectives.
1. A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower: Forward, Engaged, Ready (Washington, DC: Department of the Navy, 2015), 19.
2. Ibid, 21.
3. Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY2016 (Washington, DC: Department of the Navy, March 2015), 7.
4. An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2015 Shipbuilding Plan (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, December 2014). Ronald O’Rourke, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, August 2015), 12–14. Norman Polmar, “Can We Afford the Fleet?” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, August 2015, vol. 141, no. 8, 86–87.
Commander Harris is a surface warfare officer serving as the commanding officer of Coastal Riverine Squadron 4.