Home » Naval » Too Few CG Cutters For Demands

Too Few CG Cutters For Demands

By Greg Grant Wednesday, February 17th, 2010 4:19 pm
Posted in Naval, Policy

Before becoming Navy undersecretary, Bob Work wrote an excellent white paper on naval power where he sketched out a notional future fleet. Work said that when calculating U.S. naval power it’s important to include the 160 cutters and nearly 800 small boats of the Navy’s “closest ally” the Coast Guard, which together with the Navy make up the “National Fleet.”

Since most foreign navies are more akin to coast guards, Work reasoned, the Coast Guard is often better suited to dealing with those foreign navies than the Navy itself.

On a conference call with reporters yesterday, I asked Coast Guard commandant Adm. Thad Allen how his service’s well-publicized budget woes are affecting that National Fleet idea.

Allen started off by saying he works closely with CNO Adm. Gary Roughead, along with Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway, on refining naval operating concepts that aim to stitch up the “seam” between the high-end of Coast Guard cutter capability which is the low end of naval combatant capability, and figure out how to generate some overlap and redundancy for missions that fall into that seam. However, he doesn’t have much in the way of available ships to feed into that seam.

While there is a clear “demand signal” from the various combatant commanders for cutters to assist in building partner nation capacity around the world, Allen said, maintaining a continuous forward presence beyond a couple of cutters is too much for his force. “The real question for me is how much force can we put at the (National Maritime) strategy given the size of our fleet. The demand signal right now is larger than our fleet.”

The Coast Guard maintains a single cutter about “one-third to half the time” operating with Africa Command and another cutter at “a little less than that” with Pacific Command, he said.

Allen revealed a bit of the tension that exists between Navy and Coast Guard shipbuilding plans, saying the National Security Cutter is better suited to partnering with foreign navies than the Littoral Combat Ship. “[The National Security Cutter] can operate independently, it can steam 12,000 miles, operate for 60 to 90 days without replenishment, and is used to operating independent of a battle group, without the need of an oiler, which the LCS would need.”

Share |

Join the Conversation

	John King February 17th, 2010 at 10:16 pm So why don’t we take some LCS money from the Navy and give it to the Coast Guard?
	Solomon February 17th, 2010 at 11:23 pm Because the Admiral isn’t telling the whole story. Besides range the NSC offers no advantages over the LCS. The idea that an NSC would operate independently of other warships for 60 days overseas is nonsense. They don’t even do that when operating off shore of the US. It is telling that in one instance he talks about teaming up with the Navy and Marines and in the next he basically body blows (for procurement reasons) the very concept that he lauded earlier. The idea of pushing ships to fill the ‘seams’ between the services. AMAZING! If he actually felt that way then he would be an advocate for the LCS in Coast Guard colors. Why does the Coast Guard need a ship that out distances a Burke Class Destroyer? That was the standard to which the LCS-2 was built. The LCS-1 is just short of it. Additionally the LCS fit the net centric Navy…what is the Coast Guard doing to make sure that they fit into those nodes? Prediction. In 5 years (after the LCS whatever is in service) the mission modules will change the way stuff is done at sea. The USCG will be in a hurt locker because their ships don’t fit into the new scheme of things and they’ll be looking to design another ship that does what a Navy ship is already doing.
	Retired Now February 17th, 2010 at 11:35 pm Lockheed Martin does the Command and Control onboard both the LCS-1 and NSC cutters. One big difference is the huge sized SESS space onboard the cutters that is many time larger than the LCS. Which ship class will be “networked” better ?
	Retired Now February 18th, 2010 at 12:32 am Also, since NSC’s have two separate helo hangers each with a separate door, it should be easier to alternate helo handling while underway. And the obvious, NSC won’t have to refuel as often, since it carries 6 times as much fuel ! LCS does have one advantage, though, their OOD’s and JOOD’s will get lots and lots more practice conning during Replenishment at Seas (RAS) with oilers. And the crew of NSC actually has almost 150 racks (all in staterooms with private heads). So, when they embark 2 helo det personnel, as well as other shipriders, everyone is safely berthed in properly ventilated and genuine berthing areas. Vice sleeping in a box, griped down to the deck in the waterborne mission area / Reconfiguration area that LCS-1 provides for their VBSS teams. Oh, and NSC is actually equipped with working roll stabilization system, vice the LCS-1 fins which must be extended and only operate at slower speeds. Not to mention that NSC is equipped with more sensors such as the latest version of SPQ-9B, AEGIS GFCS, and SLQ-32. LCS-1 has nothing comparable.
	Retired Now February 18th, 2010 at 12:33 am Supply support ? NSC has fully sized spare parts storerooms with normal supply cabinets while LCS-1 has an area at the bow with some very hard to reach shelves, capable of storing and filing nothing in the way of onboard spares. GYM, Mess Decks, galley, food storage, etc. NSC easily outsizes each corresponding area on LCS by a factor of 3 or 4 times larger. The list goes on. Put an Admiral onboard each ship for a week underway and then decide. Would you like 3 INFRARED sensors on your NSC on just one onboard your LCS ? not enough space to complete this.
	BJL February 18th, 2010 at 12:36 am true the coast guard doesn’t need a cutter that can outdistance a a burke class destroyer or any of the navy’s ships but let me ask you this why would the navy start looking to the coast guard ranks last year to fill in navy seal ranks.
	BJL February 18th, 2010 at 12:36 am true the coast guard doesn’t need a cutter that can outdistance a a burke class destroyer or any of the navy’s ships but let me ask you this why would the navy start looking to the coast guard ranks last year to fill in navy seal ranks.
	R.A.Schwehr(ret) February 18th, 2010 at 1:23 am It is easy to see that with all the various factors involved coming up with an annual solution on which ship or platforms to field involves Flag and General Officer strategy,Congressional overight,engineering genius,commercial availability,logistics and about as many other permutations that could throw a monkey wrench into any reduction gear box.There are many,many aspects to a deployment discussion like this.The Comandant of the Coast Guard was not “hammered”,but it is probably safe to say his job just got harder.“Networking“is best accomplished with integrity,a quality of the present leadership.
	Solomon February 18th, 2010 at 1:25 am Probably because they were ordered by the former SecDef to expand the number of SEAL Platoons and its easier to gain potential candidates from within the service than recruit those with no military training. But the men and women of the CG aren’t the issue. The issue is the procurement policies of the service.
	Retired Now February 18th, 2010 at 1:37 am Oh, and NSC actually has 360 degrees of radar coverage, vice having a huge (almost 90 degree wide) sector aft where radar coverage is either blocked or severly degraded by the main mast. Comparing ESM surveillance coverage also yields almost 360 degrees for NSC, vs. perhaps a 90 degree (roughly) blocked zone for the LCS’s ESM. So, if we just give LCS-1 lots more money, they can redesign their entire topside to be (maybe) as good as the NSC. Anybody got a lot of extra money laying around to pass over to Lockheed Martin to redesign the entire topside mast and antenna arrangement ? Pretty soon, LCS-1 can cost as much as a fully equipped frigate or a modest destroyer.
	Retired Now February 18th, 2010 at 2:40 am The clincher — (classic) is LCS-1 sending some sailor running all around the forecastle, to drop all the life lines so that the Gun can fire ! Is anyone embarrassed by this “design” feature ? Of course the NSC can shoot the same gun mount at min and max ranges without any such non-sensical delays just prior to engaging the enemy with the longest range weapon onboard either ship: the 57mm Bofors. Let’s hope the enemy is not shoot back because the entire huge LCS superstructure is aluminum, while the entire NSC is steel. Enemy action Starboard ! Sound GQ !
	Byron Skinner February 17th, 2010 at 10:42 pm Good Evening All, Pop Quiz: Name the worlds second largest Navy? The LCS is not for the Coasties, at 3000Kt. and $460 million a haul and still rising. it is to expensive for the red headed step child of the military. The USCG wants a haul in the 1500 Kt. range and as Greg mentioned stay at sea un replenished for 60–90 days and be manned by a small crew. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Solomon February 18th, 2010 at 4:04 am you fixated on the weaker of the two LCS designs. Point your fire at the LCS-2 and lets see how well the comparison holds up. Not so much. Additionally you’re discounting the modularity of the design. Mission modules are the key to whats going to make this ship function. Your other points are pretty irrelevant. The LCS for all its faults is still a better run program with more long term potential than the go it alone NSC cluster. I’m all for service pride but its time to tell the emperor that he has no clothes. The USMC has the problem with the ITV and IAR…the CG has it with the NSC. No problem—just fix it.
	Jeff February 18th, 2010 at 12:18 pm I really think the Coastguard should just buy an off the shelf ship, even if it means they have to purchase from a European ally. I know a number of them produce ships that could fill the Coast Guards needs. I really believe they have an urgent need. Unlike the Navy’s fighter gap which is a capability short fall, this is a viability short fall.
	John King February 18th, 2010 at 4:24 pm The modernization plans of the Coast Guard revolve around its “needs” to support blue water “requirements.” My concern is that they really need to reassess those “needs” and “requirements.” If they do, the money falls in place. For example, if they just forfeit the overseas support to the Navy (or foreign partners with their own coast guards), then the National Security Cutter (8 ships to replace 12 HEC at $4.8B — up from $3.5B) and Offshore Patrol Cutter (25 ships at $8B and climbing), then they have money to finance all 120 or so 110-foot patrol boats with Fast Response Cutters (FRC) instead of of only 58 (for $3.2B and climbing). We need to protect the homeland first. Everything beyond that range is nice-to-have, but unaffordable. As an alternative, if the Coast Guard wants to deploy overseas, let them work with the Navy to add a few Burke’s with a Coast Guard configuration. The Burke shipbuilders will accommodate that and Congress will approve it.
	Anon. February 25th, 2010 at 10:19 am 41 110′ Patrol Boats…not 120. In addition, operations that require CG assets overseas for any notable amount of time are typically fully funded by the Navy. The real impact is the loss of those assets for domestic missions. The “needs” you mention are more the result of overseas missions being thrust upon the CG and less a matter of choice.
	retired February 25th, 2010 at 11:35 am why donT the cg take some ships out mothballs? refet. them. back in ww2 the coast guard maned commerical ships .
	alex schmidt February 25th, 2010 at 11:43 am Beyond the fact that the CG should not necessarily need a ship that fits the LCS mission, or does better at it, there still remains the problem of the CG’s aging fleet. 10 out of 12 cutters rushed to help Haiti experienced mission altering CASREPS. CG vessels are easily twice as old as Navy ones, and are expected to last longer. Many of the larger, WHEC, cutters are being decommissioned due to age and the fact that they’re simply falling apart. Point is, the CG needs the funding to bolster its fleet more than the Navy really needs more combat ships. Especially considering most CG units operate on constrained budgets as is..not counting Obama’s wonderful budget cuts. As you can probably tell, I’m in the CG, funding is an aggravation at times;)
	anon February 25th, 2010 at 12:03 pm No thanks. Getting someone else’s old hand-me-down stuff has been our problem for years.
	Anon. February 25th, 2010 at 12:28 pm We’re STILL running ships from 1940s! The CG doesn’t mothball ships like the Navy…we run them until they cost more to operate than to replace (over the long-term). Most of the CG fleet already falls into that category yet we can’t get enough funding to replace them. The Commandant wasn’t exaggerating when he said that the average age of our ships is 42 years old…vice 14 for the Navy. We run the 43rd oldest navy in the world with an annual budget that equates to a rounding error for DoD.
	Billyray72 February 25th, 2010 at 12:34 pm I am a Coast Guard Veteran. If there is anybody that should know about this deepwater program. It has been going since the Coast Guard has been in service and that is being placed on the back burner. The other services have one person that the Coast Guard needs to make this deepwater project, that person is the Secretary of the Coast Guard. We need to have a Secretary that can provide and make this Deepwater project come into reality. The National Security Cutter only represents one tenth of the deepwater project. The 110 to 123 extention really set this project on a deep slop that the USCG will not recover. And the American taxpayers will find more debt on the national debt for generations to come.Now about ships in mothballs, yes it could work, but it will cost more to replace warn out parts that today ships will cost less.
	Choo February 25th, 2010 at 12:38 pm Mothballed ships are mothballed for a reason. They are typically so outdated and in such bad shape the cost to retro fit would outweigh the cost of new.
	Jim February 25th, 2010 at 12:53 pm I spent a year on a weather cutter we lovingly referred to as 255 feet of rust floating in formation. There is a point were the equipment is no longer serviceable and should be replaced. Money always seems to be short for the Coast Guard even when we were under the dept of the Treasury. Now we are expected to be spread even thinner by adding even more details to a seemingly endless work load. Why not let the Navy build some smaller vessels to do what they want and let the Coast Guard specialize at their already seemingly endless workload. The required equipment would not be designed for ‘multi tasking’ which means each vessel will not do any one thing very well. The Navy has a tremendous job and so does the Coast Guard, let each one do what they do best with equipment specialized to that need. Over lapping is a expensive deal, how about specialization within mission parameters and financial constraints. Just an over simplified enlisted opinion.…..
	Eeyore3061 February 25th, 2010 at 1:10 pm And, back then, the US had a viable Merchant Marine to get the ships from. The state of the MM compared to the those from other countries today is … beyond bad. Still, the CG could do what it did when it procured the WHEC’s. Talk the USNavy out of some money to help fund them in exchange for info and experience on how they work. WHEC’s were the first mass produced ships in the US Fleet that had LM 2500(?) Gas Turbines as a main propulsion component. After they started going into to commission the USNavy could then point to them and start shutting down the high pressure steam ships and shift to Diesel/GT. And the international training and interactions that the Navy wants bolsters Nation-States overseas. This is a force multiplier to keeping security in the Homeland and off our shores at a higher level then without the interactions. Plus it’s an old CG mission already. I once found some logs/journals from when the old Gentian worked AIDS down on the Panama Canal and they mentioned working/training with Caribbean and Latin America CG’s while passing through.
	BM1(ret) February 25th, 2010 at 1:12 pm During WWII Coast Guard crews manned Navy and Army ships from escorts to LST’s. What would be the problem with doing that today? It would help “stitch up the seam” giving the Coast Guard ships that would keep up with the speed and maneuverability of today’s naval battle groups when working jointly (something that the HEC and MEC can’t do). They would be Navy Ships (paid for by the Navy) under Coast Guard command and control. Painted CG colors and having CG names (maybe CG manned vessels with designated service in WWII). Any CG specific mission required modifications /equipment paid for by the CG and any Navy updates/modifications paid for by the Navy. I know that there would be other logistical issues to work out but it seem to be a KISS (keep it simple stupid) / win win situation to me. But I’m just a simple Boatswain’s Mate (retired).
	Bob DeGroot February 25th, 2010 at 1:23 pm If you want to scare someone with your ship, nothing can fit the bill as well as the LCS-2. We live aboard our DeFever trawler and a few months ago tied up to the Convention Center dock downtown Mobile Al directly across from the LCS-2. The next day the ship was heading out and the person in charge of some of the systems was taking photos and we invited him on board for a better shot. He gave us the rundown the LCS-1 and 2. Two very different ships. The LCS-2 awe inspiring and if I wanted to militarily scare someone, that would be the ticket. The challenge with the LCS-2 (they affectionately refer to it as the Little Cute Ship) is it is difficult to get intimate with the water. But, for the policing mission, that’s the boat for me.
	DCCM Retired February 25th, 2010 at 8:36 am Things never change when it comes to politics. The Coast Guard always has run alone and not with a fleet. That is why the ships must have sustained long range without support. that said, we coasties should not have to deal with long range “Navy” assignments as a destroyer; rather we should operate in a Coast Guard capacity. We should speciallize in the smaller vessels (400 ft or less)and let the Navy have the larger vessels. Too much technology is just that, too much. How much does the Coast Guard really use in it’s day to day mission. We need good, strong, dependable, cost effective multi-mission ships and small boats.
	cadet February 25th, 2010 at 1:37 pm No clue what Flagrante is trying to get at. Adm. Allen has been an incredible leader who has helped bring the CG into a changing environment with flying colors. The only limiting factor I see is something everyone’s been touching on..lack of funding. I definitely agree with BM1 and Jim. Also, having the motto “we do more with less” seems to be hurting us more than helping the CG lately. Congress and the White House believe we can take budget cuts while ramping up missions when we already having embarrassing assets for a nation as prominent and powerful as the U.S. It seems much more logical to assume other branches of the military could take cuts, ie the Navy funding help our new ships if they want us to support their missions. Please correct me if in fact other branches do put significant aid into CG programs.
	RM Retired February 25th, 2010 at 1:57 pm Hey Boats, your note needs to go a little farther. The Coast Guard needs to be like the Marine Corps, attached to the Dept of Defense under the Navy. I know there are a lot of shipmates out there that will not agree with me. Remember when we used to go scrounging the going out of commission Navy ships in Long Beach for spare parts. I have even seen shipmates taking sinks from the head among other parts.
	CGZeroRet February 25th, 2010 at 2:12 pm Homeland Security does not require a 800 million dollar per copy toy that has an ability to transmit real time video to the chairborne professional second guessers at Buzzard Point. Coast Guard top leadership takes an obscene amount of pride from driving a high endurance cutter to China or the Baltic once a year. Sorry, core missions do not require this new budget-breaking class of ship. Photo ops and banquets should be left to the State Department. If you need a stunt cutter, so be it…but Deepwater has been an insane use of taxpayer dollars that will not stop terrorists. It will not stop drug or migrant runners as well as a larger fleet of simpler, thrifty and efficient ships. Did the last decade of CG leadership learn nothing from the 270 program? And don’t get me started on CG “mondernization.” Insane. The low point came when ADM Allen ordered his leadership to stop questioning his vision via national teleconference…and then proceeded to clear the decks of anyone in top leadership that dared to express an intelligent dissent. Thank goodness the self proclaimed hero of Katrina is finally moving on. The CG wasn’t big enough for his ego.
	Dan Williamson February 25th, 2010 at 2:32 pm In reading all of the above comments it is evident the USCG has become embroiled in the D.C./Pentagon/DHS appropriations nightmare. I wonder how many that control these purse strings & decisions surrounding them even remember what their predecessors in USCG/Navy uniforms sacrificed just to get us to the point in history we are now? It seems to be all about money/prestige /fame or “bragging rights”. May my former shipmates/classmates that lost their lives on the USCG CUYAHOGA rest in peace. They would not believe the change in their former Service (for better or worse). –Dan Williamson
	cadet February 25th, 2010 at 2:42 pm Would you (the three commenters above) say that BM1’s comment about CG personnel manning Navy ships for said missions, and putting CG funding into larger fleets of more DHS mission compatible cutters is a good solution? Many of these issues are out of my depth as a USCGA cadet, but like most cadets at the Academy close to graduation feel, immersing ourselves in the current issues of the fleet is important. Adm. Allen is amazingly popular here and I must say this is the first time I’ve ever heard any scathing comments about his policies or character. I know deepwater went off the deep end per say, especially with the cutter lengthening project, but it seemed to be a good idea. Also, the CG’s positive image and ability to help foreign nations with their growing navies, most of which appear more similar to our CG than to our Navy, seemed to be a good idea. Is Adm. Allen’s message really that far off?
	SirK February 25th, 2010 at 2:45 pm Gee.. must be a few passovers commenting. First, the CG needs multi-mission vessels capable of a variety of missions and mission supports. 2nd, our HECs were built in the 1960s. We need vessels that will last much longer than average. Chances are good that the NCS will still be opeational in the 2060s. 3rd we are facing aprx 1000 personnel cut this year, we cannot man additional vessels. 4th Deepwater, with CG contracing fully engaged in day to day, they drop billions on us, spend it now. CG didn’t have the personnel resources to spend. Who didn’t know knew we were going to screw that up? Have a great day all
	CGZeroRet February 25th, 2010 at 3:23 pm Negative, SirK. Never passed over; I had a fulfilling, full career and made every promo point. And Cadet, I wish you the very best…I had a great run, and am very much enjoying my success in career two…I hope you do too. Unfortunately, almost all the recent past COMDTs have been too quick to force feed change with promises of efficiency which just do not pan out. There just seems to be something in the HQ water that makes top leadership think they can increase effectiveness by stirring the force alignment up again and again.
	CGZeroRet February 25th, 2010 at 3:24 pm I served in Admiral Allen’s chain of command multiple times, and I can honestly say he’s the best flag communicator I’ve ever heard. He’s a very smart guy, but not wise enough to rethink his modernization conclusions when perhaps half of his senior leadership came in with valid “but…sir” after “but…sir.” The misguided modernization effort has led to the departure of many of the best and brightest, and I sincerely doubt will result in tangible benefits when balanced against its high cost in dollars and morale. I hope to be proved wrong, but the initial signs are disheartening. There remains a huge number of doubters among those that really know how this piece of sausage has been implemented. The savings just aren’t there, and some real disconects have appeared in the former support functions. Meanshile, I don’t blame ADM Allen for the NSC cost overruns, but I blame him for not stopping this high priced low value project. Coast Guard leadership loves to quote from “Lincoln on Leadership” but they seem to miss a very important feature of our most important President: he surrounded himself with people that questioned him–not a band of high level butt kissers.
	John G February 25th, 2010 at 3:31 pm The CG is currently operating three Navy Patrol Coastals under a lease program to supplement the loss of the 110’s converted into 123’s. They have been very useful but are scheduled to be returned to the Navy next year.
	coasties mom February 25th, 2010 at 3:36 pm My son is currently deployed aboard one of the high endurance cutters. This ship is 42 years old. They are experiencing major problems with the newly refurbished ship fresh out of dry dock, their sister ship is still in port due to major problems, after millions were spent on both of the ships. Due to budget cuts and the coast guard being last on the list it will be 2012 at the earliest before these cutters are replaced. The uscg was first on the scene after 911, first on the scene after Katrina hit. saved countless lives during Katrina. first on the scene after Haiti earthquake patrolling the waters to stop the fleeing haitians. They are our first line of defense against the drug trafficing and illegal immirgants. They oversee all of the ships coming and going from our waterways. Their resources shrink and equipment just get older and more useless against the threats. So all resources that can be given to the uscg needs to happen, they are our first line of defense against any attack. They are the only branch of the military that can enforce both state and federal laws without a state of emerency being declared. They need our support and our respect they put their lives on the line everyday to serve and protect us.
	Gmelon February 25th, 2010 at 3:38 pm 2 Things: Not sure of the requirements of the USN, but the Coast Guard does need a long range ship that can independently of a fleet. We always patrol that way, as our counter drug and search and rescue missions require for that. Comparing the LCS to the NSC is sort of comparing apples to oranges, isnt it? The USCG simply needs the NSC to replace its existing fleet, its meets and exceeds the requirements needed by the current demands of the Coast Guard. Additionally, the NSC can be of some use to the USN if the USN asks for it. With regards to Coasties becoming SEALs, lets be clear, the USN did not ask for Coasties to be SEALs. If the Navy needs more SEALs, they dont borrow from other services to get them. The Coast Guard requested to send some of their own for SEAL training in the hopes that they would return to the USCG following their 6–8 year contract with the Navy, and provide some much needed expertise in counter terrorism, expert tactics, etc. Currently, there are only 2 Coasties serving with the Navy, maybe 3–4 more this year. This is not a large program.
	BillQM2 February 25th, 2010 at 3:40 pm Wow, looks like things have changed since my days, and I am not that old. Just from experience guys, the CG I knew and loved made their missions work no matter what the equipement we had to use, was! From 82 to 86 I worked on CG buoy tenders from WWII, WLB 401 and 396. We took pride in keeping these old boats running and doing there job, and used them for many tasks besides ATON. I guess I am not up on the latest and greatest with the Deepwater program for CG, but let me make it clear in my eyes the CG is about taking care of the homeland and its people.
	billQm2 February 25th, 2010 at 3:41 pm Homeland Security should be the CG mission, plain and simple. Whether it is SAR, ATON, Marine Safety, etc. etc. it should have to do with coastal operations, that is why we are the “puddle jumpers” and not the “squids”. And from my experience the CG always worked with Navy hammy downs to get their job done. So to cut personal in the CG for new equipement is crazy, who is going to run the new boat with no qualified people. And in fact the CG should be ramping up personal and let the Navy get what they want and specialize in what the CG needs only. We can make it work because if we dont another 9/11 will happen again and God forbid it that attack comes from a coastal attack because the CG did not have enough resources. Imagine the clamour and funding for the CG then and let the Navy do what they do best protecting American interests abroad, not at home that is the CG.
	John King February 25th, 2010 at 4:15 pm Supporting the CG and Cadet, the CG needs a strategic that matches its resources. It is well and good to do all things, reality says it’s time to restructure plans and resources. Change to a “defend and support homeland first” strategy. Stop procurement of the National Security Cutter (high endurance replacement). Too pricey for what it does. It’s really a Navy mission. Postpone development of the Offshore Patrol Cutter (medium endurance). Use the money to accelerate procurement of all patrol boats and smaller vessel and aircraft. Once the 200-mile limit is covered then, maybe, CG credibility will be such that Congress will consider more distance roles. But until then, live within your means and do 100% of your real job. Otherwise, CG will suffer mission failure across the board. Will the new Commandant be this smart?
	GurnetLighthouse February 25th, 2010 at 4:39 pm As a former MK1 (Ret) from a small boat station in the Boston area, our Area of Responsibility had increased way beyong our ability to respond adequately. The station south of us had closed and that made it longer for response time. The station below that has the same situationa they also a little too far to respond adequately. With more civilian vessels on the water with less resources available they are stretched at times to the limit.. Granted the Air Station could respond quicker, they had limitations, such as extinguishing civilian boat fires.The small boat station that I was at is the busiest one in the First District. Even at one time with the Lighthouses were manned by CG personel, they were also our eyes and ears for observing vessels in distress along the coast.
	Dusted Eagle February 25th, 2010 at 12:08 pm To: Flagrante Delicto. You need to educate yourself, miss. The USCG is not a “search & rescue” organization. They are a federal law enforcement agency, and have been sine they were born in 1790. SAR is not their “core value,” but nice to see that you find buzz words, but unable to properly utilize them to make your point. Calling the CG a SAR organization is like calling your local sherrif’s depart a SAR organization. Go look up the CG’s history, and if you have the time, look up the federal laws in which they operate. SAR is just one of their missions. The US government has military forces stationed in almost every country on this planet, and is currently fighting a war on terror in 3–4 foreign countries. All, with no standing army and no military draft. Instead of properly manning itself for war (the USA), our government has decided to deplete all available resources to conduct missions that are either TS, or which they, the feds, have decided not to inform the public about. (The issue of the CG’s aging fleet and its ships literally falling apart is true. LOOK IT UP! Our government will not even spend the money needed for body-armor for its grunts. Why would anybody think they would spend money to modernize the CG? CG sailors serve on ships that are older then their parents!) Instead of worrying about the welfare of America’s (uneducated in boating operation, security or safety and usually intoxicated) boating public, you might want to start worrying about how our homeland is going to be protected when we currently have 100 million illegals and 70 million members of Islam living within our borders, and no armed forces (government willingness) to protect the American public. It will only be a matter of time before our country has another real attack upon it, that will not be just 3 or 4 planes that have been taken over by terrorists, but from people willing to do real harm to us in an all out war on our soil. When that happens, people like you, will do nothing more then to seek those to blame, then to the right thing. The right thing is to protect the USA, and not to blame people, like Coastguardsmen/Women for not doing their job, when for almost 1/2 a century our government has refused to fund them to the jobs they are required to do. As a SAR Mission Coordinator, 30+ years ago, I used to spend a lot of time on my watch calling and begging local police departments to see if they had a boat that they could send out on one of our search missions, because the HOR decided to cut our budget so deeply, that my LBS did not have the money to spend on fuel to find overdue boaters, as an example, who were never even in the water. They were in a local bar getting drunk, instead, and refused to call their spouses to let them know where they were and when they would be coming home. One, even told his wife that he would be out fishing that day, but instead, was having an affair with his ex-wife, on land! I am sure the CG is having the same financial crunch. The CG has always done more with less; but, as we now know in the 21st century, the CG’s frugalness is unsustainable, by the HOR’s refusal to properly fund all branches of the armed forces to do their jobs, and protect America and its citizens. It will only be a matter of time before the average American citizen realizes that their elected officials are not and have not been doing their jobs. That of protecting America, its Constitution, or it’s citizens.
	L. Herr February 25th, 2010 at 5:08 pm Seems to me that the NSC’s, as they replace the High Endurance Cutters, are intended to take on the tasks of several of the high endurance cutters as they were phased out, not one at a time. My understanding is that the replacement is supposed to be more like one NSC for every three high endurance cutters for an example.
	Dodbuzz1 February 25th, 2010 at 5:15 pm Editor here: Please remember that while we encourage vigorous debate we do not accept personal attacks. Those who engage in personal attacks will be permanently blocked if they do not amend their behavior. Feel free to hammer at the facts and the politics! Thank you.
	Dusted Eagle February 25th, 2010 at 12:23 pm To the moderator: Oops, sorry. If I was a bit agressive, I apologize. Won’t happen, again!
	billQm2 February 25th, 2010 at 5:26 pm I agree with all the most recent comments and feel we are on the same page. However, one item I would like to bring up is the CG Auxillary. I recently joined this fine volunteer organization and can tell you my flotilla really helps out the local CG stations in the area with SAR operations and the general boating public. We are even getting involved with ATON and Marine Enviorment issues. From my understanding the CGA is 30,000.00 strong and growing and is helping out with the CG mission as a whole. Maybe the Navy ought to get there own Deep Water volunteer forces?
	HJH February 25th, 2010 at 5:37 pm As Anon said the Coast Guard does not pick its missions they are dictated by Congress. And for some reason Congress always likes to add more missions but never likes to provide more resources
	XCOASTIE47 February 25th, 2010 at 6:00 pm Guys, The federal Government is going to dump a bunch of money into coast Guard bases, especially in Texas. I am here in Galveston right now building a new facility. Sources tell me that the Coast Guard is going to make the base here big enough to accommodate more ships. So the future looks good for the Coast Guard. It is about time the Coast Guard gets new and improved facilities and ships. We have been getting hand me downs for years.
	Frank R. Smith February 25th, 2010 at 1:00 pm Military’s outlook to the smallest unit the USCG,do more with less. Semper Paratus
	Flagrante Delicto February 25th, 2010 at 1:00 pm Here is the prime reason why the Coast Guard is getting farther and father aways from it’s core values, search and rescue. Under Mad Thad, the Coast Guard has become a confused, schizophrenic addict of the appropriations machine. His goal of global conquest has put American boaters at greater risk by closing small boat stations all along the US seaboard. The sooner Mad Thad is gone, the better.
	F Michael Kien February 25th, 2010 at 6:01 pm I entered the Coast Guard in 1960, got out in 1976 and entered the Merchant Marine where I am still employed as a Merchant Mariner. Additionally, I became a member of the Civil Service and served until 1996. In the latter status I worked for the Army Corps of Engineers from the field to the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the Navy at Headquarters Military Sealift Command, and finally for the Army in the field to Headquarters Army Material Command and the Office of the Secretary of the Army. What I see is the largest stumbling block to Coast Guard asset procurement is leadership. The Coast Guard does a good job in putting together studies and having data as ammunition, but, the “leaders” don’t use it or use it effectively. The first hurtle in the budget process is internally within the department whether it’s Treasury, War, Navy/ DOD, DOT, or Homeland Security. It is great to have a “Can Do” attitude but don’t expect the money to follow. You have to put your hand out with a bill or ask what mission will be cut to provide the resources and don’t start the new endeavor until you have the new resources or the answer documented. You have to use the same force when you go up against the President’s Office of Management and Budget. You have to have allies, but, you don’t get them in a money or resources fight if you are a pushover. The Coast Guard has a a reputation of “doing more and more with less and less so soon they can do all things with nothing.” Of course the next step is getting issues through Congress. Guess what? The Coast Guard has many allies there. At times it has given the Coast Guard more than it was “allowed” to ask for. One year Congress sent Admiral Smith was sent back to the office to do his homework because he couldn’t possibly run the Coast Guard on what he was “allowed” to ask for. Maybe the things you have to do as a Coast Guard Officer to get promoted, prevents the Coast Guard Leadership from being able to fight and fight effectively when it really counts. Having said the above Admiral Thad Allen seems to be a cut above the rest. It might have been early CPO training that taught him to do what ever it takes to get the job done.
	Ed Schwab February 25th, 2010 at 6:40 pm I’m a Viet Nam veteran of the USCGC Taney, built in 1936. In one thread I read about the range of CG Cutters, then someone else said it doesn’t happen. My experience was that we NEVER cruised with less than 75% fuel capacity, but we had the capability. We had plenty of experience refueling underway, but we were capable of operating independent for long periods. The mission of the Coast Guard has changed a lot since 9/11, and the wars in the mid east. During WWII, the US Navy used Coast Guardsmen abord Navy ships to man small boats and landing craft. At Iwo Jima the Navy Admiral in charge used the Coast Guard Cutter Taney as his flag ship. Then and now, the Coast Guard has had a different overall mission than the Navy. In an earlier thread, someone asked, “Who has the second to largest navy in the world?” The US Army does! As for the cost of refitting a mothballed ship, it can be huge. But many ships, CG & Navy have been completely retrofitted when the mission changes.
	Ed Schwab February 25th, 2010 at 6:42 pm In the 50 year commission of the Taney, her appearence and capability changed a number of times. In early WWII she was armed as heavily as her destroyer counterparts. In smooth seas the destroyers could make better speed, in rough seas she could leave the destroyers behind. By the time she was used in Iwo Jima, she was outfitted with the MOST UP TO DATE electronics of the time. When we went to Viet Nam, we only had one 5in 38, but we had a number of the latest weapons of the time. Does this help? I’ve never posted here before!
	Brandon February 25th, 2010 at 7:03 pm Most of the small boat stations weren’t closed but absorbed into sectors, with a stronger tug toward Air rescue which is faster and safer then a small boat rescue. Also, if I remeber right, Operation deep water has been around longer then “Mad Thad” as you call him.
	KWi February 25th, 2010 at 7:15 pm Cadet– In my experience, those people that have neg opinions can be judged by how far off the Modernization idea they are. Combine their off-kilter view with the possibility that they were persnlly challenged for their dated ideas and you have an algorithm for their displeasure with the Adm. In my previous role, I had to implement his orders– some I did not see the value in– but there is only one person in charge, hence the CofC thing. I saw Sr Staff COs, who were not operating their “kingdoms” similar to everyone else, get reprimanded and asked to leave if they could not follow the vision.
	KWi February 25th, 2010 at 7:16 pm Continued– The point of Modernization is that we have never been able to tell Congress what it costs us to do ANY mission the we have completed since 1790. As a result of Adm Allen’s heavy jerk of the reins, we will be able to justify our existence to the powers that be. It will be the first time in history that we will be able to stand next to our 4 sibling services and validate what the tax-payer gets with their hard-earned dollar. Once we can do this, it will be much easier to see the value NSCs/UTBs versus the next AFB, extra C-5’s, or whatever. Folks may see Adm Allen’s departure as a break in the action on Modernization– good luck with that. Based on my past experience with Adm Papp, Adm Allen was a pussy cat. You are coming into the fleet at an opportune time to see the Coast Guard evolve out of our bastard step-child role. Welcome aboard Mate.
	KWi February 25th, 2010 at 7:16 pm Continued– The point of Modernization is that we have never been able to tell Congress what it costs us to do ANY mission the we have completed since 1790. As a result of Adm Allen’s heavy jerk of the reins, we will be able to justify our existence to the powers that be. It will be the first time in history that we will be able to stand next to our 4 sibling services and validate what the tax-payer gets with their hard-earned dollar. Once we can do this, it will be much easier to see the value NSCs/UTBs versus the next AFB, extra C-5’s, or whatever. Folks may see Adm Allen’s departure as a break in the action on Modernization– good luck with that. Based on my past experience with Adm Papp, Adm Allen was a pussy cat. You are coming into the fleet at an opportune time to see the Coast Guard evolve out of our bastard step-child role. Welcome aboard Mate.
	KWi February 25th, 2010 at 7:23 pm Coastie Mom– Please make sure you copy your posting to your elected officials. The great men and women serving alongside your son deserve the support from their congresional officials not just from great parents like you. Please thank your son for his service on my behalf. Despite their warts, there is no place like a 378. Semper Paratus.
	cromley February 25th, 2010 at 7:28 pm GUYS, THE COAST GURAD HAS ALWAYS BEEN SHORTHANDED AND LEFT TO THE WAYSIDE IN MOST BUDGET YRS OR LONG RANGE DOD PLANS, BUT THEY SEEM TO EXCELL NEVERTHELESS. LET THE OTHER SERVICES OPRATE A PEICE OF EQUIPMENT FOR 50 PLUS YRS AND MAINTAIN IT’S READINESS AT ALL TIMES. THE NEW GAURD AND DOD FOLKS JUST DON’T KNOW BUT THEY KNOW HOW TO SPEND AND NOT HOW TO PLAN. BUY SOME OLD MOTHBALL SHIPS AND ADD A BIGGER MID-SECTION TO THEM, HA, HA. DO A STABILITY STUDY BEFORE DOING SO:-)
	KWi February 25th, 2010 at 7:34 pm John– I don’t know your resume, but I am guessing you have never done SAR in the Bering? Around HI or Guam? Drug interdiction along the southern maritime borders? Your solution sounds great for coastal America and if we were only engaged in SAR, but since 1790 the CG’s role has been to enforce laws and treaties in US territorial waters and on the high seas. We still have numerous missions well beyond the reach of our shore infrastructure that requires vessels onscene and patrolling. See what happens when one of those guys on the Discovery Channel loses a vessel in the Bering and there is no CG vessel out there looking for it. You can’t get there with a 41 or a 110.
	jimmysunshine February 25th, 2010 at 8:05 pm You’re out of touch with reality, dude!
	monkeywrench February 25th, 2010 at 8:46 pm Amen Coastie Mom. I’ve been reading all these posts, and so far yours makes the most sense. Probably because it came from the heart not just some politically based ego sputtering.
	John kilgore February 25th, 2010 at 9:17 pm On two of the three Cutters, I went to VietNam on, were older than me. The third Cutter is now over 40 years old and still does overseas assignments. The biggest bang for the congressional dollar has always been the US Coast Guard. It has no 5 star Admiral, no lobby group for contracts and no support for additional funding for needed resources to serve the United States. Because of it’s size with no opposing group, it is the easiest budget to reduce or cut. Given the same requirements as the present US Coast Guard, the other government agencies would NOT be able to accomplish missios assignedEspecially if given without notice (ie Katrina, Cuba 1962 era and lesser known missions). In the era of building nations’ debt , bump up the US Coast Guard budget, AND WATCH THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT SOAR.!!!
	Bill King February 25th, 2010 at 4:30 pm Soloman, You are taking too many parts of the quote out of context. When Adm Allen was stating how the Navy and Marines worked together, I believe he was being diplomatic. Then he answered the question from the reporter about what the Coast Guard needs. However, you never came to grips with the Admiral’s point of a cutter working independently outside a battle group. That is what Admiral Allen’s point of the answer. This is just my opinion and I maybe wrong. BTW, the Coast Guard does not operate inside the DOD, it is part of Homeland Security.
	John King February 25th, 2010 at 10:38 pm The Coast Guard death sprial is a result of Commandants not telling the President what they need to know. Instead they are told by OMB what they need. With Allen going out, he should have the intestinal fortitude to tell the President and the Congress what his problem is and how many new personnel, how much equipment he needs, and how much it costs. Our population is only going to increase. We cannot have an under resourced Coast Guard. As to false calls, like the drunk in the bar who’s current wife is looking for him because she feels he might be in trouble while sailing, send him a bill. As to SAR in the Bering, no, never done that. I’m a retired Pentagon money guy who helped get the CG their war money so they could support the Navy. But I can recognize a performance problem when I see it, and recommend a solution. And in this case, it’s NOT to buy $300 million admiral’s gigs when that can also buy 5 150-foot patrol boats, 15 or more helos, dozen of small boys. As to the fisherman — God love them — we should make them buy commercial insurance in case they get into trouble, and pay off the CG when they do.
	John kilgore February 25th, 2010 at 11:07 pm Coastie Mom, if your son is on the Dallas,She is a fine Cutter. I kow, because I rode her to VietNam when she was new. Her previous skipper was excellant and a fine officer and gentleman, whose chief concern was his crew and his ship. I met him recently, and he reminded of another Commanding Officer who had the same qualities.I know the present C.O. is filling large shoes, and I understand he is filling those shoes well . One thing about the men and women of the US Coast Guard, is they dig deeper into their souls to get the job done.A lot of times it’s about the job, other pressures and obstables are set aside. Bailing wire and bubble gum repairs are still the main course of maintaining the units. If only congress could do half the job with half the resources as well as the US Coast Guard , our country would be in better shape. Thanks for supporting your son and the US Coast Guard. I hope you are as proud as my Mom was of me and “our” Coast Guard.
	John kilgore February 25th, 2010 at 11:18 pm Big money to US Coast Guard is a drop in the bucket for agencies like the miltary. Once the Base construction is completed , cuts and closures will happen elsewhere in the Coast Guard. So the new growth will be at the expense of cutting other units. BUT IT IS GOOD TO SEE SOMETHING NEW!! Sorry the support elsewhere will be reduced.
	F Michael Kien February 25th, 2010 at 11:30 pm As I read through the comments it appears many are confused as to what is the mission of the Coast Guard. The Rolls and Missions Study or what ever is the latest rendition should make it clear the Coast Guard is Multi-Missioned. The background is the merger of many organizations with different missions and a common thread — Keep the seas and waterways safe. In our ever shrinking world, we must be our neighbors’ — near or far — supporter. It comes with being a world leader. If we don’t, the have not’s will envy the have’s and attempt whenever possible to take what they want. By supporting poorer countries, there is the possibility for them to see a better future through hard work rather than hostility. Coast Guard support for allies and developing countries has been a mission since I was a cadet in 1960 and probably before that. The Coast Guard Leadership needs to go after funding for all mission areas and let it be known loud and clear that failure to properly fund a mission area will lead to cancelation of a portion of the area rather than placing personnel at risk when it could have been avoided. It should not be a decision on which mission is the Coast Guard’s core mission. Resources come with the mission or the mission gets shorted. There has to be some wiggle room when new assignments begin or for multi-mission platforms, but, eventually the mission assigner has to pay the piper. That’s basically what Admiral Allen is saying. The Navy wants the asset to help it’s going to cost so they have to anty up or support the Coast Guard’s request for assets. The other services know how to play the game. It’s time for the Coast Guard to learn.
	Former Puddle Pirate February 26th, 2010 at 12:04 am Sorry, but that is only one “value” of the Coast Guard. Search and Rescue is one mission that was inherited from the U.S. Life Saving Service. You forget that the Coast Guard of today was built from other Services and combined all of their missions under one Service.
	Big Easy Flight Mech February 26th, 2010 at 12:14 am Reading all of these comments sure does bring up some good points, I’m an Aviator so i will keep it short like an AVDET! Have a NATO convention, somehow figure out how to detach the CG from the DHS, become DOD, and board vessels without being considered “an act of war” I think it is ridiculous that we arent DOD, keyword DEFENSE! last time i checked, when we go to other countries, we blow there places up. To me that’s OFFENSE haha. But in all seriousness, If we become DOD, maybe we will get some money our way, and our spouses will have access to more grants for schooling which The CG doesnt have!
	Tim Sheffler February 26th, 2010 at 12:54 am Don’t know if you know it Mr. Kien, But ADM Allen’s father was a DCC in the Coast Guard. His training started early and was well learned!
	H Russell February 26th, 2010 at 1:15 am WHEC,‘s have Pratt & Whitney jets , not the GE LM 2500. You are entirely correct, otherwise. I was the design Officer for the 378′ WHEC’s. The Navy engineers in the 1960’s were ecstatic that USCG got the use of Gas Turbines accepted. The Navy’s ships discussed here are gas turbine only. They are very short legged and burn fuel fast at all speeds especially at 40 knots. An oil tanker must be close by. This does not apply to the CG“s NSC or WHEC’s because they both have big diesels for cruising at about 20 knots.
	AD SCPO February 26th, 2010 at 2:04 am Please DoD, absorb us. Somebody please get us from the clutches of DHS. The influx of civilians is brutal. The ridiculous training, the endless data calls, it’s all so absurd. Thad you were good after 9/11 but it’s time to go. Modernization will do nothing for our mission, DHS Secretary, God deliver us…Budget? What budget? Who above said we are not a SAR organization? That’s our foundation, that’s what we get paid for. When’s the last time you heard of MSRT or a MSST with a valid real life CT mission or an actual real life shooting. Hey I love PWCS but at what cost? We need a new fleet — we’re a sea going service that isn’t going to sea anymore. BTW, no war is won at a best economical speed of 12 knots. As for special programs and special missions: the CG is too worried about being (overly) safe, to concerned with oversight, too in bed with industry, to ready to say we can do more with less year after year after year.…cheers M8’s. I’d kick more ass, but I’m not allowed to.
	CGMustang February 25th, 2010 at 9:40 pm Problem is the Commandant did not say NO to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the current Administration in their telling the Coast Guard to take manpower cuts and cuts in its budget. Adm. Allan failed to stand on principal in getting his force what they need to perform all Coast Guard Missions. If he stands on principal, he gets fired, retires with 3 stars, at least he has stood up for his people. Regretfully, in the last 50 years our COMDT’s have given in to the politicals with maybe the exception of Admiral Yost. My oberservations with over 28 years active and reserve service in the USCG.
	Senior Chief, ret. February 26th, 2010 at 12:13 pm Big Easy Flight Mech and AD SCPO: You guys need to go back and read Title 14 USC and the historical law reasons why the CG is not in DOD. Have you ever heard of “Posse Commitatus?” The CG can enforce federal law (not state as someone mistakenly posted earlier) because it is not part of DOD. The constitution prohibits the use of the “military” for law enforcement purposes except is special circumstances. What the Coast Guard has always needed was a bigger budget and more personnel. (I served from 1972–1993, by the way). My first cutter was an icebreaker built in the 1930’s and given to the Russians under Lend Lease. With more money and people, the Coast Guard could train their people better to do the jobs assigned. That may have prevented the tragedy in California where a recreation boat was ran over by a CG small boat.
	F Michael Kien February 26th, 2010 at 10:51 pm AD SCPO, That’s not going to help! When DOT was formed the Coast Guard set up the organization and was the largest segment of the department and still lost out in the bid for funding and personnel. In DOD the Coast Guard would be run over by a M-1 Tank. The problem is the CG Leadership being under the promotion system that constantly makes you watch your back makes them gun shy when it comes to making important decisions. They don’t make it clear that new and jacking up the intensity of old missions costs and taking that cost out of hide only works for a while, F Michael Kien
	F Michael Kien February 26th, 2010 at 11:03 pm John, You and I were both money men. I was a DASC in the Pentagon, and you are on the right track. Not just the Commandant but the entire CG Leadership has to demand resources for new and/or intensifying missions. The promotion system makes them such wimps none of them will do it. Being able to properly justify decisions and use of resources is a big part too, but if you don’t step up to the plate you cant score any runs. F Michael Kien
	Ron February 27th, 2010 at 3:26 am For the last half century the Coast Guard has established a history of mismanaging major procurement projects of both ships and aircraft. Their best and longest lasting equipment has been that which they inherited from the US Navy. The Coast Guard also has a mandate to be able to function as a part of the Navy in a time of National Emergency. The Medium Endurance cutter and above can be satisfied by retrofitting Fast Frigates. Aircraft should be derived from standard military aircraft. The Coast Guard is too small to provide depot level repair for aircraft and major assets. They would be much better served with assets that have major repair programs already in place. The Coast Guard does have some unique requirements in buoy tenders, patrol boats, and small craft. This is the only place that the Coast Guard should specialize. The Coast Guard has been fortunate in that they have an outstanding force of operational personnel. For many decades they have been responsible for taking substandard equipment and making it perform outstandingly. The people performing Coast Guard operations have never had the support from headquarters, the department to which they are attached, congress or the White House that they deserve. The Treasury, Transportation, and Homeland Security departments have never maintained sufficient people who know how to manage assets the Coast Guard has. Coast Guard headquarters has never tried to interface with the Navy in the way necessary to benefit both services. Congress has never practiced proper oversight. The White House only wants to give the Coast Guard more missions while cutting personnel and budgets. What the people in the Coast Guard need are for all veterans to keep after those in congress and the executive branch to do their jobs, as well as those in Coast Guard Headquarters to act responsibly.They also need healtyy debate on how best to chart the future.
	AD SCPO February 27th, 2010 at 4:02 am Senior Chief retired: Please don’t talk down to me or anyone else. All of us are very familiar with Posse Commitatus. Allot has changed since you got out. In fact, it’s still changing, every damn day. Which is a huge problem. Allot hasn’t though. As in Ron’s excellent talking points about lack of support from HQ on up. Nonetheless, we’re just searching, discussing, and hoping for more money, people, and resources. None of which will happen as the budget got cut by $75 million, we’re losing approx 1100 people and 453 billets overall. As well, Cape May is shutting down for the remainder of FY10 with 5 major cutters slated for razors and 5 MSST’s going away. We understand where our authorities derive. That isn’t what’s on the table here. Stay on point. In fact one last thing, I’m pretty darn tired of dinosaurs with holier then thow perspectives. When you got out you we’re still routing hard copy messages on clip boards with a rubber stamp for each dept head’s initials. You throw a couple of examples in type (above) and talk about training. Man you have know idea of how things are run anymore. Your best bet is to stick with opinion based blogging because you’ve been out of it too long to speak on today’s facts.
	AD SCPO February 27th, 2010 at 4:09 am I understand the DoD is not the final answer. I’m prior Army and just spent 12 months in embedded in an Army command in Iraq. My point was/is we need to do anything to get away from DHS. You can’t point to one item as THE problem, perhaps the promotion system is one of the problems but there are so many greater cultural action items that need to be addressed that the promotion system doesn’t even blip on the radar as one we should try to change at this point.
	H Russell February 27th, 2010 at 6:54 am In some ways USA goes overboard in protecting boaters. At least we now charge for refueling,. but only for the negligable cost of the fuel itself. Britain’s boaters are rescued by a volunteer force. Spain uses private rescue companies , who charge you. If the states had to contribute a % to units like the Astoria Air Station, it would be discontinued. Columbia mouth SAR was handled at one time as a temporary summer detail. –Summer is when the boaters are out. Now it is year round. CG could not use Posse Commitatus if CG were under DOD.
	Ivanhoe99 February 27th, 2010 at 6:27 pm I seem to recall Adm Allen, in the State of the Coast Guard presentation I saw, say that of the twelve Cutters responding to the Haiti crisis ten had major equipment problems and one had to be drydocked. Add that to the fact that the building of new ships has been removed from the Coast Guard it appears that the service has endemic, major management problems in operating and managing its own current affairs. There does not appear to be a program in effect to develop a service cutter, maintain a service cutter properly, and have a replacement cutter in place at the proper time. Poor management, like cream, rises to the top every time. Also, the volunteer arm, the Auxiliary, is so inept that during a recent survey, of 34m auxiliarists only 5,700 bothered to respond. The Coast Guard really praises itself but needs to be overhauled from top to bottom.
	ARD March 1st, 2010 at 2:47 pm I am sorry Solomon, but after eight years with the Coast Guard, I can state with certainty that you are wrong. It is routine for our ships to operate independantly for 60–90 days at a time. We just call them patrols. The average length of our patrols varies by the vessel, but the smaller 378 foot WHEC class, which the NSC will hopefully eventually replace has 82–95 day standard patrols, and often ends up going longer when we end up getting re-tasked. Please check your facts before posting. The US Coast Guard is out in international waters every day just like the navy, but we very rarely end up sailing with them. I can remember sailing with navy ships twice, both times were for less than a day, and were for photo oportunities.
	Big Easy Flight Mech March 2nd, 2010 at 2:11 am What i was trying to say that i think Senior chief ret. didnt understand was the fact that we need to become DOD but, FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE IT LEGAL TO STILL DO WHAT WE DO AND BE DOD with it’s funding, WERE AMERICA WE CAN FIGURE IT OUT!
	PHILIP M. HAJOST March 2nd, 2010 at 2:43 am Bottom line is the Navy has to many people and they don’t cross train like us Coasties, they need so place to put all of them. There is a job for everybody in the Navy. We all know that the 378′ are an aging fleet and the 210’s are getting there, and the 110’s are there too. As far as I’m concerned its our time to shine, cut the Navy’s legs out from under them and give us the money for our aging fleet, where the money we’ll be we’ll spent. We are doing the job everyday, numbers don’t lie. Its time we quit trying to polish terds.
	Jim Drozdowski March 2nd, 2010 at 1:11 pm Drug smuggling is the USA’s #1 enemy not Al Quaeda and that is where we should spend our diminishing resources, stopping the drug trad.
	John King March 2nd, 2010 at 2:55 pm F. Micheal et al, I believe we all agree that under whoever’s “management control the Coast Guard should be, they need to get their act together and be proactive about mapping out what they need, and marketing it to the American public. Looks like they need some active companion organization to make their case since they aren’t allowed out of the box to speak freely as they should.
	CGWarrant2 March 7th, 2010 at 10:34 am Always trying to to do the best with less has finally caught up with us. Our image has to be changed from just “guarding the coast” to a more stronger role as a military organization and guarding the world. World situations now effect the roles of our young men and women “coasties” and our department heads should get in step and rebuild our mission(s) SOP’s (not being afraid to ask for/demand a bigger piece of the military funding buget. In order to do more.…demand more. More more planes, more ships, more stations, more personel and more military training involvements. My military career involved interactions with other military services and exercises and saw this day coming, but was told I was out of the box back then. Wee good at what we do, but today’s sltuations demands we do more …Always Ready???????