Posted on 10/23/2005 5:16:04 PM PDT by Incorrigible
|
The Coast Guard, "Running on Empty"BY TED SHERMAN |
Struggling for years with an aging fleet, the Coast Guard is facing millions in unexpected repairs and upgrades on old patrol boats, helicopters and planes it once planned to replace through a modernization program called Deepwater.
The problems arise just as the Coast Guard -- which won widespread praise for its response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita -- is being saddled with more and more responsibilities, stretching a patched-up fleet even further.
 |
| Coast Guardsmen from the cutter Bainbridge Island, in background, check a commercial fishing boat off Sandy Hook, N.J. (Photo by Jerry McCrea) |
"By any measure, the Coast Guard is in an absolute world of hurt," said retired Vice Adm. Howard B. Thorsen, former commander of the Coast Guard's Atlantic Area. "In many ways, the Coast Guard is running on empty."
Earlier this year, Congress was reluctant to fully fund the agency's modernization program, threatening to slash the $966 million Deepwater budget request for fiscal 2006 by nearly half.
But then came Katrina. The quick response of the Coast Guard -- captured live in dramatic footage of hovering helicopters plucking stranded families from the roofs of their flooded homes -- contrasted sharply with the well publicized failures of the Federal Emergency Management Administration.
The Coast Guard performed 24,117 rescues and 9,403 hospital evacuations following Katrina and Rita, marshaling 62 aircraft, 30 cutters, more than 110 boats and 3,470 personnel from as far away as Alaska. And in the wake of harsh criticism, responsibility for post-hurricane relief efforts were unceremoniously yanked from FEMA and handed over to Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen. Both FEMA and the Coast Guard are part of the Homeland Security Department.
Last week, Congress agreed to restore most of the Coast Guard's 2006 Deepwater budget as part of a $30.7 billion homeland security bill.
"Breaking that funding logjam, frankly, was one of the most fortuitous results of the Coast Guard's outstanding performance in the Gulf of Mexico," said Scott Truver, a defense analyst for Anteon Corp. in Fairfax, Va.
Hurricane heroics aside, more and more is being asked of the service, especially in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. An examination of how the Coast Guard allocates its resources shows a vast increase in mission hours -- much of it for coastal security and the interdiction at sea of illegal aliens -- that has been particularly punishing on equipment.
The Coast Guard's renewed focus on national security and defense readiness also has been at the expense of its traditional missions: keeping foreign fleets out of U.S. exclusionary fishing zones, intercepting drug smugglers, even search and rescue, agency numbers show.
While no one claims those missions are being ignored -- indeed the number of drug seizures is up -- the expanded duties are taking a toll. In the past three years, the Coast Guard has dry-docked vessels at least 22 times to repair leaking hulls.
At the same time, it is operating without some three dozen Coast Guard vessels and 1,195 personnel deployed overseas to Iraq.
An analysis by Congress' Government Accountability Office found many Coast Guard assets are in even worse shape than has been reported. The report found:
-- Serious engine problems on the Coast Guard's workhorse Dolphin HH-65 short-range helicopters have forced flight crews to dump fuel or temporarily leave rescue swimmers in the water.
-- The surface radar on the Coast Guard's HC-130 surveillance planes, used to search for vessels in distress or monitor ships for illegal activity, frequently fails. Flight crews then must rely on visual contact -- a situation one crew member described as "trying to locate a boat looking through a straw."
-- One 378-foot cutter, the Jarvis, lost one of its two gas turbines while on patrol in the western Pacific in May. It completed its mission but was restricted to speeds that would have left it unable to respond to a crisis.
Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., chairman of the House Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee, has long been pushing for far more funding to replace the Coast Guard fleet, which includes cutters that are more than 30 years old.
"We don't have time to fool around," LoBiondo said.
Unveiled in 2001, the agency's Integrated Deepwater System was envisioned as a $17 billion program to replace aging ships and aircraft over 20 years, tying them all together with a sophisticated communications and data network.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, expanded homeland security responsibilities led to major revisions and a shortened timetable in the Deepwater plan. New classes of cutters -- including those made from composite materials -- as well as unmanned drone aircraft were added and the price tag rose to $25 billion.
But many people, including some members of Congress, say they have reservations about the plan.
RAND Corp. analyst John Birkler, in a report commissioned by the Coast Guard, urged last year that the agency accelerate its acquisition plans. He also recommended it look to new technologies, such as underwater surveillance sensors, to enhance its existing fleets.
"Deepwater's assets are not sufficient," Birkler said in an interview. "Not by a long shot."
Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., who sits on the Coast Guard and Maritime subcommittee with LoBiondo, complained that the Coast Guard's modernization plan seems increasingly focused on patching up old equipment instead of buying new.
Nearly 30 percent of the Coast Guard's proposed Deepwater budget for fiscal year 2006 is earmarked for fixing, maintaining and converting existing ships and planes.
Among those fixes are the expensive upgrading -- including new engines and instrumentation -- of the Coast Guard's Dolphin helicopters, which have remained in service despite continuing in-flight power failures.
One such engine loss nearly led to disastrous consequences near Syria two years ago, when Cmdr. Robert "Magic" Makowsky, a veteran pilot stationed at Atlantic City, N.J., was flying patrol off the cutter Dallas in the Mediterranean. Makowsky was in the left seat of his Dolphin with three other people aboard when warning lights suddenly blinked on.
The instruments showed a loss of power in one of two turbine engines -- what pilots call a "torque split," which leaves the aircraft unable to hover or to descend vertically.
The Dolphin is a military version of the French Aerospatiale Dauphin, and has a reputation for such control issues because of problems with the American-built engines substituted to meet the "Buy American" requirements of the contract.
Makowsky's choices that April night were limited. He could land on the beach in Syria, 40 miles away, and risk a diplomatic incident or even arrest. Or he could attempt a risky landing on the Dallas by having the cutter steam into the wind, possibly giving the helicopter enough forward speed to maintain lift until touchdown.
It was a one-shot proposition.
"There's a point where you either get a `9.5' from the judges, or land in the water," Makowsky said.
With co-pilot Kyle Armstrong calling out numbers on the instrument panel, and crew chief Terry Cowart watching the approach angle, Makowsky landed safely, just inches off the center line of the cutter's deck pad.
The aviator was later decorated and the exploit became the focus of a congressional hearing. The Coast Guard consequently opted not to wait for a Deepwater replacement for the Dolphins and began making major modifications to the 20-year-old aircraft.
Other stopgap measures have been less successful.
A plan to modernize 49 cutters -- including lengthening the hulls and replacing the superstructures -- recently was abandoned.
Coast Guard officials claim the contract was canceled because the modified patrol boats could not meet post-9/11 mission requirements.
However, serious structural shortcomings were discovered after the first eight conversions. One of the modified cutters, the Matagorda, sustained extensive hull damage last year -- including a 6-inch crack in the main deck plating -- while trying to evade Hurricane Ivan.
Coast Guard officials said the patrol boat's hull deterioration turned out to be greater than originally estimated, requiring more extensive repairs.
Four of the cutters already modified were immediately placed under operational restrictions, allowing them to get under way only in an emergency.
Oct. 21, 2005
(Ted Sherman is a staff writer for The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. He can be contacted at tsherman@starledger.com.)
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
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.
