Posted on 10/23/2005 5:16:04 PM PDT by Incorrigible
Your post is representative of the decision process that, over the years, has put the Coast Guard in the position that it is now in. Just squeeze 40 years out of a 30 year boat... and at the forty year mark, figure out a way to get another ten years.
Oh, yeah... and double the patrols for it, too, but please try to use less gas, OK?
The CG is finally getting some badly needed new equipment. If you ever want to think that your tax money is well-spent... this is the place. You'll get your money's worth and more.
We used to say "We've done so much for so many for so long with so little, we're now qualified to do anything with nothing."
Looks like it's budget season on the Hill.
That isn't what I said.
Oh, yeah... and double the patrols for it, too, but please try to use less gas, OK?
Don't be silly. If you need a strawman that badly you'll have to debate yourself.
The CG is finally getting some badly needed new equipment. If you ever want to think that your tax money is well-spent... this is the place. You'll get your money's worth and more.
I didn't say that there was no need for new equipment, I did say that there is an over-emphasis upon new designs as the durability of the 41' suggests. I want spare parts compatibility and more of them. I don't think we need new boat designs.
Yours is an argument that has been made in the procurement process forever. A fancy set of gaffs could save my life too. I don't buy them. I put new straps on the old ones, and take my chances.
Actually Brownsville, TX. 1973, where the USCGC Durable was homeported. There was a scrapyard just down the road. When I got to her, the gun mount was almost inoperable. No money for spare parts. And, oh by the way, we have gunex coming up, so it has got to work. So, I did what all Coasties learn early on, get creative, and find a way. No problem too small that it cannot become a crisis. Don't worry about how it works, just make sure it looks pretty. That is, until we need it, etc, etc.
I simply disagree. There are far superior designs available now than there were 40 years ago. Spending new money on old ways of thinking is foolish, IMHO. The new boats are more durable, more effective and more efficient than what was available back then.
Something like this... and its even cheaper than the Boston Whaler that you talked about (have you priced whalers lately? they're outta sight...):
"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"
Actually, the CG was, as I understand it, funded under the DOT because, in this way, they can board ships both foreign and domestic, which our other branches cannot do unless in a time of war.
This is pure bull. Electronics help find the victim, which gets the boat to the right place in less time, a difference that can easily offset speed. Such a scenario is even discussed in the article above.
We routinely towed in 70-150' fishing boats with our 41'. Not many whalers could handle that.
And I've seen the Coast Guard tooling around a glassy Oakland Estuary in a 41 doing traffic patrol, which could be done better and safer from a whaler (if there were nice looking women aboard, they got boarded much more often). Guess which use burns up more hours? Guess which one costs more per hour?
Nor can a whaler handle much over about 5' seas.
That's not what I've seen around the Golden Gate and beyond.
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.
More strawmen.
Yeah, we were/are called the Jewish Navy, Puddle Pirates, Knee Deep sailors, etc.
Speed saves lives.
This screen name was chosen for the fishing vessel Fierce Allegiance out of respect for those that risk everything making their livelyhood on the open waters. Oh, and I thought is was cool.
Do some reasonable research and come back. You are wrong.
Uh... those aren't strawmen. FA is dead on.
We watched a facinating story on the Discovery Channel Saturday about Coast Guard Rescues. Lots of expensive equipment needed. Hope this story gets the coverage it deserves.
My dad was in the Coast Guard Auxillary. Great group.
I lived on the water for nine years and learned enough first hand. The amount of SAR work was small compared to routine harbor patrol and environmental policing.
"Quite a bit of money could be saved if pointless tasks such as pursuing drug smugglers in the Carribean were abandoned...."
They could be smuggling weapons. The point is, you don't know until you catch them. I don't agree with the WOD but we don't want unidentified gomers landing on our shores.
The first part of the show on the Discovery Channel had to do with the rescue 5 guys in a sinking boat. Two CG boats were on the way. A CG helicopter went ahead with a rescue swimmer & a female mechanic who dropped the basket for pick-ups & guided the pilot. This helicopter picked up 2 who were in the water. By that time the 2 CG boats picked up the other 3.
The helicopter has to stay a a little away from the people in the water because the force of the rotors pushes down. The resue swimmer is trained to withstand it. You all probably know all this. But, a show like this shows how much is involved the CG work for the rest of us.
You take an amazingly reckless view of living on the water. I'd bet you would skydive without a reserve chute. (ok, there's my first strawman.)
I've seen your posts for several years now and never once did I think you were a dope until last night and today.
You know, I find it interesting that there is a considerable amount of concern over the underfunding of military, except when it comes to the CG. The Coast Guard rarely gets the press for their financial conditions. Largely because of the fact that they rarely complain, except internally. If the headline read, "Coast Guard failed to rescue boaters because all of their equipment was broken!", perhaps it might wake folks up. One Commandant suggested that the Coast Guard should drop its unofficial motto of, "We have to go out, but we don't have to come back in!" That should be their official motto. When I joined the Coast Guard, it was because they actually did something besides train to do something. In the 60's it was said that the Coast Guard actually returned a profit on its Federal budget of 5 to 7 times what was spent. Yeah, I guess my dander is up.
I hear ya! I don't wish any of our armed forces to be underfunded, while a huge percentage of our budget goes towards "entitlements". The USCG is so multi-function, few people realize it. SAR, MLE, Enviro crap, vessel and port inspection, AToN, Loran, etc, etc. The boats have to be designed and equipped to handle all these roles at a moments notice. You know all that, though. Many don't, andthose are the people that think beekeeper subsidies are more important than providing first rate equipment to the men & women who risk their ass to save those in trouble and keep our shores safe.
The CG covers the entire US coastline and beyond with a force scarcely larger than the NYC police department. Average current stock vessel life has to be over 30 years. New radios won't solve the problem, nor will it fill the void of available operational equipment, especially in light of the newly expanded role the USCG has to play.
Yah, and pool lifeguards only spend a small amount of their time rescuing drowning kids. So? Should it somehow be otherwise?
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.