U.S. Navy
(continued)
by recurring voyages.
Sealift ships have never been a
glamorous activity to Navy plan-
ners. Given the choice of spending
scarce funds for combatant ships or
sealift ships, the Navy will invaria-
bly choose the former. As a result, it
has largely fallen on Congress to ini-
tiate requests for sealift ship con-
struction.
Background of New Program
The decision to build more sealift
ships began last year when Congress
appropriated $600 million in the FY
'90 budget for this purpose. Con-
gress acted in response to concerns
that the U.S. had insufficient sealift
capability. However, DOD subse-
quently reprogrammed some of
these funds to pay for the military
action in Panama and refused to
release the balance to begin the pro-
gram.
Then Iraq invaded Kuwait and
suddenly sealift became a high
priority to defense planners. As a
result, Congress authorized a new
fast sealift ship construction pro-
gram for FY 1991 and appropriated
an additional $900 million for this
effort. Following is the text of the
report accompanying the appropria-
tions legislation dealing with the
sealift program:
Congressional Directive
For The Sealift Program
"The House bill included a provi-
sion (sec. 1324) that would establish
a program for the construction and
commercial operation of commer-
cially viable cargo vessels that incor-
porate features essential for military
utility of the vessels in time of war
or national emergency. The report
accompanying the House bill (H.
Rept. 101-665) suggested a specific
design for the ships constructed un-
der the program.
"The Senate Amendment con-
tained no similar provision.
"The conferees agree to establish
a fast sealift program for the con-
struction and operation of cargo
vessels that incorporate features es-
sential for military use of the ves-
sels. The Secretary of the Navy
would be responsible for the design
and construction of the vessels after
consultation with the Administrator
of the Maritime Administration.
Ships constructed under the pro-
gram could be dedicated to military
use if the Secretary of the Navy
determines that it is in the national
interest for the ships to be immedi-
ately available. Ships dedicated to
military use would be required to
have a full or partial crew. The con-
ferees are aware that there may be a
number of options for dedicated
military use with a full or partial
crew and intend that it include op-
eration of ships as is presently done
with the prepositioned ship pro-
grams and with the SL-7 ship pro-
gram, in which ships are maintained
Exhibit 1—Military Sealfit Ships
(as of June 1990)
DWT DWT
Ship Name in 000's Year Built Ship Name in 000's Year Built
Tankers Prepositioning Ships
Sealift Antarctica 27.2 1975 PFC Eugene Obregon 25.1 1983
Sealift Arabian Sea 27.2 1975 Maj. Stephen Pless 25.0 1983
Sealift Arctic 27.2 1975 American Kestrel 29.8 1972
Sealift Atlantic 27.2 1974 Austral Rainbow 29.7 1972
Sealift Caribbean 27.3 1975 Green Island 46.1 1975
Sealift China Sea 27.3 1975 Green Harbour 46.1 1974
Sealift Indian Ocean 25.0 1975 Advantage 27.8 1977
Sealift Mediterranean 27.3 1974 Noble Star 18.2 1977
Sealift Pacific 25.0 1974 Santa Victoria 13.1 1969
Gus Darnell 30.1 1985
Fast Sealift Ships
Lawrence Gianella 32.4 1986 Bellatrix 55.0 1972
Paul Buck 29.5 1985 Algol 55.0 1972
Richard Matthiesen 32.4 1986 Denebola 55.0 1973
Samuel Cobb 32.6 1985 Pollux 55.0 1973
OMI Champion 37.9 1969
Altair 55.0 1973
Overseas Alice 37.3 1968 Regulus 55.0 1972
Overseas Valdez 37.8 1968 Capella 55.0 1971
Overseas Vivian 37.8 1969 Antares 55.0 1972
Bravado 4.5 1977
Courier 35.1 1977 Hospital Ships
Mercy 69.3 1975
Patriot 35.1 1976 Comfort 69.3 1975
Ranger 35.1 1976
Rover 35.1 1977 Aviation Logistics Support
Wright 23.9 1970
Prepositioning Ships Curtiss 23.9 1969
PFC James Anderson 57.6 1979
PFC William Baugh .23.1 1979 Dry Cargo
1st Lt. Alex Bonnyman 23.1 1980 American Eagle 20.7 1981
2nd Lt. John Bobo 26.5 1985 Mercury 19.2 1977
Sgt. William Button 26.5 1986 Green Wave 13.1 1980
Green Ridge 12.5 1979
Sgt. Matej Kocak 24.1 1983 Maersk Constellation 21.6 1980
Pvt. Harry Fisher 23.1 1980
Cpl. Louis Hague 23.1 1979 Santa Adela 14.0 1966
1st Lt. Baldonero Lopez 26.5 1985 Santa Juana 14.0 1966
1st Lt. Jack Lummus 26.5 1986 Rainbow Hope 2.0 1980
PFC Dewayne Williams 22.5 1985 Rover 15.7 1969
Source: Military Seaflift Command
in a reduced operational status with
a nucleus crew and planned to be
able to deploy in four days. Ships
not dedicated to military use would
be leased for commercial operation.
"Two reports would be required.
The first would be on the plan for
the fast sealift program and would
be required within six months of
enactment of this bill. The second
would be a report of activities under
the program and would be required
three years after enactment. The
conferees expect that fundamental
decisions on the nature of this pro-
gram will be made within six
months, which should be sufficient
for the selection of design options
and for completion of an updated
mobility study, required under sec-
tion 909 of this bill.
"The conferees agree not to rec-
ommend a particular design for
ships built under the program."
(Source: FY 1991 Defense
Appropriations Conference Report)
Current Plan
The Navy is responsible for de-
sign and construction of these
ships—with MarAd in an advisory
role. The ships are to be built to
commercial specification. They can
either be dedicated for military use
or leased for commercial opera-
tion—at the Navy's option. A de-
tailed plan of action is required to
be prepared by April 1991.
There are two basic hurdles.
First, DOD must release these funds
to the Navy—a problem in the past.
Second, funding which has been
provided must survive potential re-
programming actions resulting from
spending constraints.
Design Features
The ships are to have RO/RO
capability and be able to transport
one heavy Army division. Current
planning calls for 120,000 bhp on
two shafts with CPPs. The Navy is
currently studying prime mover op-
tions which include diesel electric,
geared diesel, direct drive diesel and
CODAG plants.
Acquisition Actions
The Navy, with MarAd and other
input, will first decide on specific
performance requirements. NAV-
SEA will then prepare a contracting
package—inviting offers through is-
suance of a circular of requirements.
It is likely that competing design
contracts will be awarded to three or
four teams—with one or two of
these teams selected for the con-
struction contract.
The construction contract is like-
ly to be fixed price, probably with
an incentive provision. Commercial
standards will apply to most equip-
ment. Only U.S. yards will be eligi-
ble to compete for construction. The
contract terms may include a re-
quirement for full or partial domes-
tic production of prime movers.
Points of Buying Influence
A procurement of this magnitude
involves a complex set of players.
The Deputy Chief of Naval Opera-
tions for Logistics (OPNAV 04) will
develop the performance criteria for
inclusion in the circular of require-
ments. USTRANSCOM, MTMC
and MSC will provide input for
commercial viability.
The Naval Sea Systems Com-
mand (NAVSEA 377) will manage
the program. NAVSEA 05 will per-
form design and engineering—with
assistance from the David Taylor
Research Center, MarAd and sup-
port firms. NAVSEA 02 will handle
the contracting.
IMA is preparing an in-depth assessment
of this business opportunity from the view-
point of prospective bidders. A detailed
report will be published in December—pro-
viding information highly useful to firms in
structuring marketing and bid activities for
the sealift program. Purchasers of the re-
port will, over the following 12 months,
receive advisory memos on key program
developments. The report is available for
$1,200 by contacting: IMA Associates, Inc.,
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 901, Wash-
ington, D C. 20037. telephone (202) 333-
8501, fax (202) 333-8504.
28 Maritime Reporter/Engineering News
Digital Wave Publishing