Posted on 10/23/2005 5:16:04 PM PDT by Incorrigible
Yup, gotta make sure that fat-ass inner-city momma of 13 kids with 13 or 14 differnt dads get's her monthly gubmint check so she can have her Comcast & Dominoes while sitting her 450lb ass in a government paid apartment. Meanwhile decent kids work their ass off for less money in shit conditions.
The NAVY guys we always had to tow in liked us too, except for the Coaties that slept with their wives while they were underway.
LMAO. That would be a muchmore efficient utilization of manpower and assets, as well as providing good training now that Vieques is gone!
My friend's father is one of those people. He has his own plane. He and his buddies (all retired military) fly up and down the Hudson River from New York City to Albany looking for anything unusual.
They haven't seen any terrorists so far but did radio in a commercial ship that was in a predicament.
Now that just mean!
I am NOT guilty of doing that. Besides, ever been in a navy town? My shipmates loved East Boston, New London, Bath and Newport. Navy wives just want the boom boom, no phone numbers, etc.
That's what they (my shipmates) told me, anyway. And I'm sure they are not all that way.
I heard once that the CG is funded by the Dept of Tranportation rather than the Pentagon. If so they are definatly treated like a redheaded stepchild.
And move the USAF back under the Army, and create a Space Force that has absolutely nothing to do with the AF. Except as a customer. Giving Space to the AF is a big problem. Space needs it's own command. Just like the AF did in the cold war. But not now.
I know that I speak heresy. And I'll never make MSgt because of it. But Doctrine needs to be logical.
A certain General got retired, because he thought that the AF needed to be removed from the Army. And he was right. For then. But not for 2005.
All A-10s, 30% of the F-16s to CAS. 50% of the rest of the air-super fleet to Strat Bombing duties, and half the balance to combat air patrol, and mainland security.
Buffs and other bombers should be doing danger-close CAS with state-of-the-art PGMs.
Just one zoomie's opinion......
/john
I was thinking about joining the Coast Guard Academy when I was in High School back in the early 90's.
That is until I found out that they wouldn't accept anyone into the academy with glasses.
Stupid rule.
The Coast Guard has always been the step-child of the US defense.
Not saying it's right, but I think the Coast Guard does more for the buck than any other branch of the government....
Amen to that.... this entire Homeland Security thing is screwed up (IMHO) -- FEMA doesn't belong there and if they try to cut Coast Guard like they tried to cut FEMA then this needs to be rethought.
Actually, I went back and looked and you are correct there.
It did 11 kts, IIRC. The new replacement is the 47' MLB. It now has a speed of approx 25 kts.
If you have that much of a need for speed, call in a chopper. There are limits to what this taxpayer will pay for a faster boat.
the 41' Utility boatis a decent design. I don't think they are replacing that as we speak. They have been around a long time, so thepoint of rugged over sturdy is moot, aside from the fact that speed is critical to saving lives. Would you want the ambulance in you town to have a top speed of 12 miles an hour?
The 41 footer does 26 knots. The number of instances in which you need the more rugged boat to be faster is very small. I think the money is better spent elsewhere.
I believe you are referring to the 2 polar ice breakers in the fleet.
No, I wasn't. I was referring (from a twenty year old memory) to the cutter Rush that was stationed in Alameda across from the marina in which I lived. It had gas turbines, side jets, you name it, although from what I read of the specs the sailor who was telling me about it was lying, it does only 35mph. It was a more than adequate boat for its supposed purpose.
We would still be using trebuchets with rocks for main battle weapons and dugout canoes for surf rescue.
Frankly, I would take another twenty B-52 aircraft with modern avionics and JDAMS compared to one B-2 at the same price. We don't need a penetrating stealth bomber when we've got the F-117, HARM missiles, and cruise missiles to open the way for the B-52.
BTW, I was in the USCG starting 1985, and the ship I was on was commissioned in 1939. We made due with what we had or could acquire via midnight requisition.
For which there is no excuse. As I said, spare parts may not be glamorous, but they are necessary and we should budget more for them as well as more for the preventative maintenance that precludes more expensive problems.
Having been a marine mechanic for a number of years, I'll take proven reliable compared to state-of-the-art every time when it's my life or death in the water or in the air. From a supply-chain management perspective, compatible equipment is a necessity, not a luxury. Having been an engineer in the mil-spec manufacturing business, there is so much money blown chasing egotistical specifications having less to do with product performance (and often harming final product efficacy) and more to do with corporate pork, that I'm a little more than suspicious when I hear about the need for new designs.
If you have that much of a need for speed, call in a chopper. There are limits to what this taxpayer will pay for a faster boat.
Good. Only do speedy SAR about 60% of the time with weather and equipment restrictons. Relying on helo's is dangerous.
The 41 footer does 26 knots. The number of instances in which you need the more rugged boat to be faster is very small. I think the money is better spent elsewhere.
I said the 41' is a decent design. It's quite spartan. You think it's too much?
No, I wasn't. I was referring (from a twenty year old memory) to the cutter Rush that was stationed in Alameda across from the marina in which I lived. It had gas turbines, side jets, you name it, although from what I read of the specs the sailor who was telling me about it was lying, it does only 35mph. It was a more than adequate boat for its supposed purpose.
The Rush is a 378' high endurance cutter. She and the rest of the 378's are all around 40 years old. Yes, they have gas turbine engines. You don't seem to understand the need for rapid response in search & rescue operations. Having bow thrusters allows these big boats to dock in more primitive locations without the need for support tugs.
Damn near nothing in the USCGC fleet is state of the art. It was all chosen with a 30-40 year life span in mind, and nearly everything far exceeds that. It sure aggravates me to hear people knock the USCG for being glamorous & overequipped, with "luxurious" items. We all scratched our asses to make the old crap we had work and keep running. The new stuff is being built for a damn good reason.
They use a 41 for a lot of what could be done with a Boston Whaler. If you think they aren't joy riding, I've got news for you.
Having bow thrusters allows these big boats to dock in more primitive locations without the need for support tugs.
I've seen very few situations where they were really necessary, most of which can be compensated by procedure and a skilled captain.
You don't seem to understand the need for rapid response in search & rescue operations.
It's real, but just like a lot of things it comes at a stiff price. There's little to be gained in acceleration compared to top speed, which in a ship are two very different parameters.
I can think of a lot of tools I would like to have but for which I don't have the cash that would save money, time, or keep me far safer in my work. Believe me, topping a tree is far more hazardous than working the deck of a rescue boat. One of the reasons I don't have the cash is that I'm paying for B-1B and B-2 bombers, all sorts of stupid hermeticity requirements in their avionics that don't work, and mountains of needless documentation in the procurements process. I'm paying for scrapped equipment that was never used. I'm paying for the consequences of deferred maintenance. Agencies have a habit of demanding nicties for weak reasons that really please the vendors in the procurement process and then fail to budget the money to take care of the equipment. Congress is at fault there.
Damn near nothing in the USCGC fleet is state of the art.
Most of what the USCG fleet does doesn't require state of the art, but I would agree that updating the electronics to that level is often a good investment in better performance at lower cost. Better maintenance is almost always worth the money.
It sure aggravates me to hear people knock the USCG for being glamorous & overequipped, with "luxurious" items.
I'm sure it does and expected such a response from someone with your background. That's the nature of the appropriations process. What I don't appreciate is that you have negated my point on upgraded electronics and maintenance. It's as if you need to paint me as so stingy as to want the fleet in disrepair, which isn't true.
Ouch! When I first enlisted in 1965, the USCGC Hamilton was being commissioned. Now I feel really old. The 378 were state of the art in 1965. The Navy liked the design so much, that they stretched it, gave it two more gas turbines, and no rock crushers, and called it the Spruance class. But, then, I guess you gotta go to war faster then you gotta go rescue someone's loved ones.
Great electronics don't do much to get a boat on site, which is what is needed to save lives.
I was stationed out of Gloucester, MA. We routinely towed in 70-150' fishing boats with our 41'. Not many whalers could handle that. Nor can a whaler handle much over about 5' seas. The USCG has to go out in all kinds of weatehr, and the 41's can handle a hell of a lot more than a whaler. Besides, have you ever attempted to perform a helo basket hoist off of a whaler?
We did use Avons, 21' rigid hull inflatables for a lot of sar. They were fairly good at towing in pleasure craft, too. Their maintenance was a lot higher, though, meaning they were not available nearly the percentage the 41's were.
Nor did the Avons have firefighting capacity like the 41', 44's and now the 47's. Also, picking up 5-6 people from a sunken pleasure craft is very difficult on a boat designed for 4-5 people.
Similarly, MLE would be more dangerous on an Avon compared to a 41'. They ride much lower in the water, and require the MLE officer to pay much more attention to just geting in, out and around the boat than working from a 41'. Covering the MLE offficer fro an Avon is much more difficlut as well.
As for joyriding, you will have to define that. Sure, we had fun sometimes, but when you put in 80 hour weeks routinely, under some damn stressful conditions for a late teen/twenty something, a little release is to be expected. That is not to say any coxswain would allow their vessel to be used in a reckless way. Thier job and life are on the line.
I never tried to negate your point of electronics until this point, because the point is useless without boats that can do the job properly.
LOL.
Thanks for serving! When I was in, the 210's and the Island class were being commissioned. Most of my time was on a black hull, sitting in the engine room rocking in the 100 degree weather with the diesel stench all day.
Yep, we need more "sturdy" boats that go slow, but have kick-ass electronics. Sure, save life & property with radio waves!
Wilmington?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.