Search Results for: Port of Long Beach

New Blood: U.S. Army set to order new vessels

 

Last year, the agency announced that it would order a new series of vessels—up to 37 in total for about $450 million— known as the Maneuver Support Vessel (Light), MSV(L) for its watercraft fleet. At print time, no RFP had been released, but it is expected to be issued in the next few weeks. The Army currently has a fleet of 132 vessels that perform a large percentage of the U.S. forces’ equipment and supply deliveries. Missions for the fleet are broken up into four categories: (1) Landing Craft; (2) Ship-to-Shore Enablers; (3) Towing and Terminal Support Operations; (4) Watercraft Operations Support.

The U.S. Army’s fleet is meant to be deployed worldwide, and can support operational movement and maneuver and force repositioning. Additionally, the agency says, the vessels perform a variety of roles.

Vessel type is broken up into two categories:

  1. (1) Lighters, which are used to conduct heavy sustainment lift; transport outsized equipment; Lighterage (cargo); and personnel between ships, from ship-to-shore, or from intra-theater transport. The Army says lighters are further classified into conventional displacement (landing craft) or modular causeway systems (powered ferry). Examples of lighters include: Logistic Support Vessel (LSV); Landing Craft, Utility (LCU); Landing Craft, Mechanized (LCM); and Causeway Ferry.
  2. (2) Floating Utility Craft, which perform operations incidental to water terminal operations (except Lighterage service); this can include harbor and oceangoing tugs; floating cranes, floating causeways, roll-on/roll-off discharge facilities (RRDF), and modular/side-loadable warping tugs.

Details on the MSV(L)
The upcoming MSV(L) will replace the Landing Craft Mechanized 8 (LCM-8) (pictured above), which has been in service since 1967. The LCM-8 travels at 12 knots with no load and 8 knots or less with load. The LCM-8 is small in size, measuring just 74 ft x 21 ft, and can be used in confined areas. It has a range of 332 nautical miles unloaded and 271 nautical miles loaded. Designed for operations in rough waters, the LCM-8 can maneuver through sea state 3, breakers and can ground on a beach. Its bow ramp enables roll-on / roll-off (RO/RO) operations with wheeled and tracked vehicles.

The MSV(L) will feature an increased payload and speed over its predecessor, LCM-8.

The introduction of the MSV(L) into the fleet, says the Army, “will enable the agency to meet its movement, maneuver, and integrated expeditionary sustainment requirements with a more agile, versatile; and capable platform. The MSV(L) will conduct movement and maneuver of tactical force elements as well as traditional Army Watercraft System sustainment operations.”

The MSV(L) will also be able to operate in a variety bodies of waters including coastal waters, rivers and narrow waterways.

According to the agency, Col. Michael M. Russell Sr. Army G-8 FD Division Chief, called the MSV(L) program a lynchpin to the Army’s watercraft strategy. The landing craft will have the ability and capacity to carry a tank, a Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), a Stryker armored fighting vehicle, troops, or supplies.

Russell added that the system would not be designed from scratch, and will likely be based on an existing design that will be “ruggedized” and made to fit the Army’s mission profile.

Industry Players Express Interest
One of the designs expected to be in the running is Constructions Industrielles de la Méditerranée’s (CNIM) L-Cat design.

Last December it was announced the CNIM would team up with Fincantieri Marine Group (FMG), the U.S. subsidiary of Fincantieri, Oshkosh Defense, LLC, and Watercraft Logistics Services (WLS) to pursue the contract.

The L-Cat (Landing Catamaran Craft) is an innovative and rapid amphibious ship with a RO/RO design that integrates a mobile loading platform in a catamaran hull. This enables for personnel, armored vehicles and equipment to be unloaded in areas where there are no port facilities and shallow waters.

Intended for shore-to-shore applications, the L-Cat is already successfully used by the French National Navy, under the name EDA-R.

CNIM says that “during amphibious operations, it (the L-Cat) guarantees optimal transit speed, rapid loading and unloading of the deck.” This helps reduce threat during exposure time and offers a high degree of autonomy, with the vessel able to operate in a rage of 500 to 700 nautical miles, depending on the load.

Measuring 30 m x 12.6 m, the L-Cat has a maximum payload capacity of 100 tonnes, can reach speeds of up to 30 knots when empty and 18 knots when loaded to maximum payload.

The design’s proven track record, along with its own successful history of building vessels for the Army, Coast Guard and Navy, makes the group the optimal choice for the MSV(L) build program, according to Francesco G. Valente, President and CEO of FMG. “We believe that our world-class team and proven design represent the lowest risk and lowest total life-cycle cost to the U.S. Army,” said Valente.

Valente notes that FMG shipyards—Fincantieri Marinette Marine, Fincantieri Bay Shipbuilding and Fincantieri Ace Marine—have experience in building these types of landing craft, having built the LCM-6, LCM-8 and LCU landing craft in Marinette. The shipbuilder has also had the distinction of building 562 landing craft for the Army and Navy over a period of 23-years. And Marinette Marine was also half of the RB-M team (Kvichak Industries the other half) that built the Response Boat-Medium for the U.S. Coast Guard.

Meeting Production Needs, Who Wants In?
According to the Army’s MSV(L) DRAFT-Production Schedule, it is expected that one prototype will be built and tested by FY19, four will be built during Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) between FY 21 and FY 22; and, should the program reach full scale production, 32 will be produced during a four-year period between FY23 through FY27.

Kvichak, formerly known as Kvichak Marine Industries, now part of the Vigor group of companies, could also be a contender should it choose to pursue the contract.

The boat builder is listed on the Army’s list of Interested Prime Contractors along with Bollinger Shipyards, Conrad Shipyards, Ingalls Shipbuilding, Derecktor, Sterling Shipyard, Swiftships, LLC, and United States Marine, Inc.—the list is a prime example of the variety of yards interested in the contract, as well as the agency’s willingness to open up the contract pursuit to all shipyard types.

Kvichak is no stranger to producing vessels for government agencies in a full-scale production cycle, having long been a builder of pilot and patrol boats. Most notably, Kvichak was the other half of Team RB-M. The team built and delivered 174 RB-Ms for the Coast Guard, on time and on budget, completing the program in 2015.

The other builders on the list also have diverse portfolios, making each a feasible choice for the MSV(L) program.

Bollinger has long been a builder of patrol vessels for both the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy. Most recently delivering the 17th Fast Response Cutter to the U.S. Coast Guard.

Conrad has, perhaps, the most diverse portfolio, with experience in the construction, conversion and repair of a wide variety of steel and aluminum marine vessels across its shipyards for both commercial and government customers—Conrad’s Orange shipyard has produced a number of vessels for the army. Conrad, as most are aware, is currently building the first LNG bunker barge for operation in U.S.

Derecktor could put itself back in the shipbuilding game big time, should it win this contract. The yard has seen its share of trouble over the last decade, having filed for bankruptcy in Connecticut and losing its Bridgeport facility in the process, but Derecktor is putting in the work to get itself to the level it once was. The builder has experience building a variety of innovative vessel types both in the commercial and private yacht sector, including ferries, security vessels, patrol crafts, research vessels and workboats.

Ingalls Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, has an extensive history with both the Coast Guard and Navy. Ingalls is currently building vessel 6 through 8 in the National Security Cutter Program for the Coast Guard’s fleet at its Pascagoula, MS shipyard. Under the program, eight vessels will be built to replace the aging 378-ft high endurance cutters. The shipbuilder also recently announced that the U.S. Navy’s 10th San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock, John P. Murtha (LPD 26), successfully completed acceptance trials. Under its contract with the Navy, Ingalls has built and delivered nine ships in the San Antonio Class. LPD 26 will be delivered in May. The 11th LPD, Portland (LPD 27) will be christened later this month. The yard has also received advanced procurement funding for long-lead-time material for the 12th ship in the series, the LPD 28.

Texas-based Sterling Shipyard, started by Harry Murdock and Brad Taylor, formerly of Orange Shipbuilding, has built a number of tank barges and towboats.

Swiftships specializes in the construction of small to medium-sized vessels made with steel, aluminum and fiberglass. It has delivered boats to the U.S. military, both commercial and private companies and 52 foreign countries.

United States Marine, Inc., Gulfport, MS, a designer and builder of fast patrol and special operations craft for the U.S. and foreign militaries, has predominately been a builder of military, patrol and special warfare boats in the 21 ft to 90 ft range. In its 30 plus years in business it has delivered over 500 craft to the U.S. Navy, USSCOCOM, NAVSEA and foreign militaries.

  • News

West coast terminals: We can’t weigh them

APRIL 4, 2016 — Terminal operators at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach say they are incapable of providing verified gross mass (VGM) weighing services that adhere to the SOLAS

Cleanup in Alaska from 2011 tsunami continues

FEBRUARY 18, 2016—The earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan in 2011 killed an estimated 16,000 people, left 230,000 people homeless, and caused $300 billion in damage, according to the Japanese Government. The

  • News

DEME orders new generation trailing suction hopper dredge

FEBRUARY 3, 2016 — Zwijndrecht, Belgium, headquartered dredging and hydraulic engineering specialist DEME has ordered a new generation trailing suction hopper dredge (TSHD) at Royal IHC, which will provide turnkey delivery of

  • News

Alaska and U.S. drop pursuit of further Exxon Valdez claims

A statement released today by the Alaska Department of Law and the Department of Justice notes that the grounding of the tanker onBligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilled nearly 11 million gallons of North Slope crude oil that ultimately contaminated some 1,500 miles of Alaska’s coastline. It affected three national parks, four national wildlife refuges, a national forest, five state parks, four state critical habitat areas, a state game sanctuary and killed enormous numbers of birds, marine mammals and fish and disrupted the lives and livelihoods of Alaskans who rely on those resources.

Now, though, the Prince William Sound harlequin ducks and sea otters thought in 2006 to have been impacted by lingering subsurface oil, have recovered to pre-spill population levels. Over time, says the statement, the exposure to subsurface oil has diminished to the point that scientists believe it is no longer of biological significance to the ducks and otters. Accordingly, the governments have decided to withdraw their 2006 request to Exxon to fund bio-restoration of subsurface lingering oil patches.

On Oct. 8, 1991, U.S. District Court Judge Russel Holland approved both a plea agreement resolving criminal charges against Exxon Corporation and Exxon Shipping (Exxon) under various federal environmental laws and a settlement agreement between Exxon and the United States and the State of Alaska resolving all civil claims between them pertaining to the spill. Under the plea agreement, the company paid $125 million for a criminal fine and restitution. The civil settlement required Exxon to pay $900 million to the governments over 10 years to reimburse past costs and fund the restoration of injured natural resources.

Since 1991, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, composed of representatives from both governments, has used civil settlement monies for significant restoration efforts in the areas affected by the spill, including: projects designed to restore the environment, manage human uses and reduce marine pollution; habitat protection and acquisition; and monitoring and research.

These restoration efforts, says the statement, have successfully accelerated and documented the recovery of natural resources that were injured by the spill. Further, due to income earned on the settlement funds, the Trustee Council currently has more than $200 million at its disposal for future restoration work.

One unresolved aspect of the 1991 settlement has been a provision in the consent decree entitled “Reopener for Unknown Injury” that allowed the governments to seek up to an additional $100 million if they later found substantial losses or declines in populations, habitats or species that could not have been anticipated at the time of the settlement. This provision allowed the governments to obtain additional funding from Exxon to restore injuries shown to be both unforeseeable and “substantial” if several conditions were met. Those conditions include presenting a detailed plan to Exxon by Sept. 1, 2006, for how to restore the substantial loss or decline of natural resources.

The governments took preliminary actions in 2006 to preserve a potential Reopener claim, by presenting to Exxon a plan to address patches of oil from the Exxon Valdez spill that recent surveys had found in the subsurface sediments and among rocks of a number of beaches in the spill area. Although this “lingering oil” occurred on only a small fraction of the originally oiled shoreline, the governments viewed it as a substantial loss of habitat because it appeared to be impeding the recovery of two species, harlequin ducks and sea otters, that were injured by the Exxon Valdez spill and forage in the types of beach sediments where the oil persists, thereby exposing them to the lingering oil.

When Exxon declined to participate, the governments undertook the first stages of the habitat restoration plan, which consisted of a series of scientific studies to improve understanding of why the oil had not yet degraded and to design specific measures to make it non-toxic. These studies were funded by the Trustee Council from the original settlement monies and have produced significant public information about the distribution and characteristics of the lingering oil, as well as pilot tests to improve techniques for accelerating the bio-degradation of subsurface oil in various types of beaches. These studies will inform restoration and resource management decisions both in Prince William Sound and in similar areas across the United States and the world.

During this period, however, continued wildlife monitoring showed that the harlequin ducks and sea otters that had appeared vulnerable to the lingering oil in 2006, have recovered to pre-spill population levels and are no longer exposed to oil more than populations outside the spill area.

Based on this information, the governments and the trustee agencies – the Departments of Agriculture Forest Service and of the Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Alaska Department of Law – have concluded that the legal requirements for pursuing a Reopener claim are no longer met.

“Although we will not be pursuing Exxon for additional damages, our decision today does not close the book on lingering oil,” said Attorney General Craig Richards for Alaska. “We are fortunate to have alternatives for dealing with this issue that can be undertaken without the constraints of the Reopener language. We will be engaging Alaskans through the Trustee Council process to advise us on what steps they would like to see us take. “

“Our decision today highlights the trustees’ commitment to excellent science and the success of their restoration efforts since the spill,” said Assistant Attorney General John Cruden for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The Reopener in our settlement with Exxon was unique and set a high bar for recovery of additional damages. Together with our partners in the Alaska Department of Law, we preserved a potential Reopener claim and investigated it to its logical end. Our action today allows us to celebrate all that has been accomplished in Prince William Sound since the spill.”

“I expect the Trustee Council will evaluate whether active restoration should be performed at any lingering oil sites using the same standards and process by which it considers other potential restoration projects,” said Trustee Council member and Senior Advisor Michael Johnson for Alaska Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior.The Council has directed restoration efforts since the 1991 settlement and has established transparent procedures, with opportunities for public proposals and comment, for spending the restoration funds paid by Exxon.

NOAA scientists, who were instrumental in developing the information that led to the 2006 habitat restoration plan, will continue to monitor lingering oil sites and provide information to the Trustee Council for use in determining whether additional restoration measures will benefit the affected coastline.

“Naturally, the persistence of oil is of concern to us,” said Lois Schiffer of NOAA General Counsel. “Although the lingering oil is largely in subsurface soil or rocks, it does have the potential, if disturbed, to expose intertidal resources to oil, and its presence can be disturbing to people who come across it. The real question is whether it is better to intervene or to leave it to break down over time.”