Coast Guard making waves about aging fleetSeeks $9.3 billion budget to modernize By Warren Wise (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Mic Smith The Coast Guard cutter Dallas is tied up at Pier Papa at the former Charleston Naval Base. It wasn't long after the 41-year-old U.S. Coast Guard cutter Dallas left its North Charleston base on Jan. 23 before it was forced into port because its equipment for making fresh water broke. The Dallas docked in Key West, Fla., for two days for repairs, delaying its drug interdiction mission. The old cutter is a mixture of old designs and new technology. In its hold, it carries the first armed MH-65C Dolphin helicopter, but the ship is plagued by the need for repairs. "We were out at sea three to four days before we discovered the problem," Ensign Kevin St. Cin of the Dallas crew said. "Once we realized we weren't making water, we only used water at certain times of the day before we reached port." Problems such as those with the Dallas underscore the need to modernize the Coast Guard's aging fleet, said Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen's press secretary Cmdr. Brendan McPherson. The Coast Guard has requested a record $9.3 billion budget for fiscal 2009, which begins in October. The 1967-built Dallas encounters problems all the time, St. Cin said. "We have machinery that's outdated. We get sent tech reps that are older guys because they are the only ones who know how to work on the machinery." In October, the 378-foot Dallas had problems with its boilers while off the coast of Rhode Island. Those are being replaced before the ship heads to the Mediterranean and Black seas in May for a five-month deployment, St. Cin said. Ships with cracked hulls, broken gear and lost propellers in recent months highlight the need to upgrade Coast Guard vessels, McPherson said. "I think we owe it to the Coast Guard's men and women who go out and take their lives in their hands, performing rescues at sea and securing the country, to occasionally replace their equipment with something that is modern, up to date and isn't going to burst a seam," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said earlier this month when he unveiled his $50.5 billion fiscal 2009 Homeland Security budget request to Congress, the Navy Times reported. After 9/11, the Coast Guard, already charged with sea rescues, drug interdictions and immigration enforcement, became the primary maritime force for homeland security as it tried to protect 95,000 miles of coastline and 361 ports with an antiquated fleet. Four Coast Guard Cutters — the Dallas, the Gallatin, the Oak and the Yellow Fin — are based in the Charleston area. The Coast Guard spending plan comes a year after embarrassments over waste and mismanagement in the Coast Guard's $24 billion "Deepwater" modernization program highlighted in a CBS News "60 Minutes" report last May. For instance, the Coast Guard spent nearly $100 million to add 13 feet to eight 110-foot patrol boats, adding a launch ramp for small inflatable boats and expanding the superstructure. In just a few weeks after being relaunched, all eight boats experienced severe structural problems and had to be pulled out of service, McPherson said. "They are still out of service, and we have formally requested reimbursement of $96 million from the contractors," he said. The Coast Guard thinks it has learned from past mistakes and intends to upgrade its cutter fleet, which has an average age of 35 years. "The need for a new fleet is as present as it ever was," McPherson said. "At the same time in the last year and a half, the commandant and the senior leadership have done a number of things to ensure greater oversight of the program. "We continue to be focused on what we need to do to increase the performance of the program and work with contractors to make sure they are meeting contractual obligations to ultimately deliver a fleet to the Coast Guard to carry out missions we need to do," McPherson said. "We believe we have turned the corner on the program." Reach Warren Wise at 745-5850 or wwise@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 25 comment(s)
Posted by UrGatorbait on February 28, 2008 at 5:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yep after say 35 years of use(which is pretty good bang for the buck)it's time to provide the Coasties with new equipment and vessels to protect our ports and coast. Time for the government to put their money where their mouth is.
Posted by Paul on February 28, 2008 at 6:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Another example of wasting 100's of billions of dollars on the misguided invasion of Iraq and not using it on domestic issues.
Posted by ChrisPia on February 28, 2008 at 6:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We Should stop rebuilding All these other Countries and start concentrating on securing OUR Borders and Infrastructure.Start taking Care of our Own First.
Posted by majorjohnson on February 28, 2008 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sen. Patty Murray and others made the navy and coast guard spend 17.5 million dollars on boats (Guardians) both stated outright that they had no use for. The builders were in Murray's' district. The navy gave 2 away and kept one that is unused. The Coast guard gave theirs to a sheriffs office in San Fransisco because the couldn't use it.
Also do a search on the deepwater project for more examples of incredible waste at the coast guard via congressional earmarks which benefits politicians favorite campaign contributors. This has nothing to do with Iraq, the money is there, it is just being redirected by congress in exchange for campaign donations instead of allowing the Coast Guard to do what is actually needed with the money.
Posted by theronce on February 28, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
60 Minutes lies a little less than they tell the truth, so I do not accept anything that they say. The administration is certainly responsible, since this happened on its watch. However, Congress will not truly investigate this, since their interference and earmarks would have to come to light also. Navigating these political waters, the Coasties take the hit, accepting that they have turned the corner. Good luck. We have given them specific responsibilities and the authority to do it, but we have played games with their tools. Iraq cost them nothing. They got their money, but they just wasted it. How hard is it to get a list of their needs, check it, and adjust it then implement a plan. This administration failed, yet I do not see a leader in the groups running for that job now. You can count on Congress being as inept and self-serving as usual until we get a decent leader.
Posted by ChrisPia on February 28, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
But what about the Whistleblowers act? Isn't that supposed to protect them for reporting this danger?(Sarcasm!)LOL
Here a Novel approach:Ask The Coast guard to design their ships based on their needs and Let the Navy Do The same....Keep The politics out of it.
Posted by ColdBeer on February 28, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a lot of respect for the guys in the Coast Guard. Having said that, the title of the article is misleading... you can't make waves of any type when you never venture in to water greater than 6 foot in depth :)
Posted by stono on February 28, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe Paul is the one who is 'misguided'.......
Posted by majorjohnson on February 28, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again, JohnQ shows his ignorance of how the government works. It is congress, not the president, running this show. Congress makes the earmarks, directs the spending, and oversees the spending. All President Bush can do is either veto the entire spending bill, sign it, or let it pass into law without signing it. The 17.5 million dollar unwanted and unneeded Guardian earmark was a democrat earmark. That's President Bush's fault according to JohnQ. Many of the problems listed are due to congress forcing the Coast Guard to use those congressmens contributors, often for things the Coast Guard doesn't want, rather than do what the Coast Guard wants to do.
According to JohnQ his bunions are also directly caused by President Bush. Irrational hatred is the cause of his incredible stupidity, but I'm sure there is some way he will blame that on the President as well.
Posted by Larz13 on February 28, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I worked on the Deepwater contract as a contractor up in the DC headquarters (while commuting from CHS) and we created a system for the Admirals to watch the progress of the work done on the project as opposed to the money spent. Collecting data for this because difficult since (in my view a grave mistake), 90% of the project was turned over to Northrup-Grummin and Lockheed Martin. These contractors did not want the data to show how behind they were and there was minimal oversight. The USCG was in a pickle since these are the only shipbuilders so they formed a joint collaboration to do the work. That seems to be where the earmarks were appropriated.
For too long, the USCG has had to get by with the Navy's castoffs. These older ships have more frequent repairs and perhaps the leadership was not ready to take on acquiring new equipment. For whatever reason this project has not lived up to expectations and there is blame all around from the USCG leadership, Congress and the Administration(s). This project was well underway before DHS so it is unclear that they should share in the blame as much but it wouldn't be surprising if they were not totally innocent.
Posted by ColdBeer on February 28, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We cannot afford to adequately fund the Coast Guard or any of the military branches as long as we continue to spend taxpayer money proving housing and food (spoken liquor and drugs) for unemployed, unwed mothers with 7 kids. Get rid of the waste, fraud and abuse in the social welfare programs at the local, state and federal level and there will be plenty of money left over to provide for national security.
Posted by msplacedinsc on February 28, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For all those "die hard" GOP's (we never ever do anything wrong folks), the neo-cons have had control of the Congress the last four years of Bill C. term and the first 6 years of the "idiot" terms.
So my question is: what has your party done with all OUR tax money? Can't wait till hear all of your posts on this one?
Posted by newto843 on February 28, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am also aware of cuts to the predictive maintenance programs on board these vessels. Predictive maintenance has served the Navy well for many years. Now not only are these boats aging there is no pulse being taken along the way. They will spend many times more reacting to unexpected catastrophic failures than they would planned down time and maintenance.
Posted by msplacedinsc on February 28, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The "idiot" in his White House briefing today said" The US is not heading into a recession"!
I guess when your the President you don't buy groceries, gas and look at the utility bills every month. Let's chalk this statement up with all the countless intelligent statements out of his ass..oops I meant mouth over the 7 long years. Jan 20th 09' can't come any sooner!
Posted by tmh32 on February 28, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ChrisPia said it all. Lets take care of our own first.
I get sick every time I hear about $$ being sent to some other country to feed their hungry or help build their infrastructure. What about America's Hungry and America's infrastructure? I'm not trying to be heartless, but how can we help anyone else when we can't/ won't help ourselves?
Posted by ColdBeer on February 28, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are benfits to helping other nations, but with things the way they are right now, I agree we need to pull back some and dedicate more of the money to our own needs.
Posted by msplacedinsc on February 28, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tmh32 & coldbeer....becareful you are starting to sounding like a "caring liberal" from the left instead of a "I don't give a rat-ass about anyone but me" from the right?
Posted by ChrisPia on February 28, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do you know what was so scary about President Bush's speech Besides the Recession stuff?...He Didn't know anything about the New Russian President...We talk about securing the radioactive material from this region and our Intelligence agency could not brief Mr Bush on the New Russian president..
Posted by ColdBeer on February 28, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL msplacedinsc, I hope I don't come across as either.
Spending money helping other countries fix their problems amounts to good PR for the US. The US just pledged a lot of money to continue the fight of aids in Africa and I'm sure that helps to make our country more popular amongst the people that live their. That could help us a lot in the future. BUT... we're so screwed up in so many ways right now I'd like to see more of our money going to fix us. Reducing crime, national defense and repairing our own infrastructure should be high priorities.
Is that left or right? I don't know...
Posted by JohnS on February 28, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ships last a long time. So do airplanes. When I went to Iraq the C130 going to BIAP had to be over 30 years old. It got the job done. The Coast Guard does a good job.
Posted by notafan on February 28, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So ChrisPia must pretty well connected to know that the President knew nothing about the new Russian president and also know what our Intelligence agency briefs the president on. One would think that a person that has access to this type of information may have more important things to do with their day rather than posting dumb, uneducated posts on charleston.net.
Posted by ChrisPia on February 28, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, Nota fan It was Called Television CNN News conference.He Said It. My Question in that statement is that after 911 How come he didn't know... Your Boy Ray Nash Gave Me All this Free Time. You Must hate my Facts.
Posted by LowCountryCrime on February 28, 2008 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ColdBeer.....it takes more skill to sail in 6' of water than it does with a mile of ocean underneath ya!! :)
The Coast Guard was the "forgotten service" for a long time because they were under the Dept. of Transportation. Most folks don't even know it's a branch of the military. I sailed on a few ship during my time in the CG that were a sinkin' waiting to happen.
Posted by ColdBeer on February 28, 2008 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LowCountryCrime, if you didn't catch it, the 6' of water was a friendly jibe. I DID say that I have a lot of respect for the Coast Guard and the job they do. As for skill level... I didn't sail with a mile of ocean underneath me... I'm a retired submariner :)
The Coast Guard is not a Branch of the military though. They were part of the DOT, not the DOD. Again, I'm not taking anything away from serving in the Coast Guard. It's a VERY honorable thing to do. I'll always kid my friends that are coasties though :) I’m not one to break from tradition in that way.
Posted by joecoastie on March 7, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ColdBeer - The Coast Guard IS a Branch of the Military.
"The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy." -- 14 USC. § 1