Twitter Facebook Google RSS
 
Homeland Security News 

Coast Guard May Face Capability Gap On the High Seas 

2,012 

By Stew Magnuson and Eric Beidel 

The Obama administration has proposed cutting $1.3 billion out of the Department of Homeland Security’s overall budget. Almost one-third of that — $382 million — would come out of the Coast Guard’s allocation.

For starters, 222 positions at the Washington, D.C., headquarters would be eliminated. Several of its older ships would be decommissioned, and some seasonal bases on the Great Lakes would be shut down.

But it’s the large boats and ships that have leadership the most worried. The administration includes funding for the sixth National Security Cutter and continues preliminary work on the Offshore Patrol Cutter, but there may be capability gaps on the horizon.

Prior to the budget’s release, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert J. Papp in two separate speeches said he was worried that the service would not be able to finish the planned fleet of eight NSCs, and that it had been a fight to keep these prized programs alive.

The National Security Cutters replace the 378-foot high-endurance cutters that were built between the 1960s and early 1990s. The third NSC was delivered to the Coast Guard last fall. Shortly after, the contract for the fifth was awarded to Huntington Ingalls Industries.

“I want to get all eight,” Papp said at the Surface Navy Association conference. “But each one’s going to be a challenge.”

The cutters are likely to be in competition for money with the service’s Offshore Patrol Cutter. The Coast Guard wants to build 25 of these to replace medium-endurance cutters that are between 25 and 40 years old, some older.

The Coast Guard originally had planned for as many as 16 NSCs and 35 OPCs, Papp said. “We’re not going to get there.”

Both these programs are intended for deep water operations. The future of the nation’s maritime security depends upon ships such as the National Security Cutter that are effective away from the shore, Papp said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies conference hours before the budget was released.

The service is in good shape with a substantial fleet of patrol boats to deal with threats close to the shore, he said. He also feels comfortable with the assets the service has in the nation’s ports. But there is a security layer he worries about.

“So if you’re inspecting overseas and you have good resources in the ports, you want some sort of middle layer to be able to intercept any threats before they get into your ports,” Papp said. “Unfortunately for us, that is the most expensive layer that we deal with, because in order to do that you have to have stout, capable ships that have high-endurance and speed.”

This “middle layer” of maritime security is hard for the Coast Guard, he said.

The Coast Guard once had 12 high-endurance cutters that could sail the high seas. The 2013 budget proposal calls for decommissioning two of them, cutting them down to seven. They are increasingly expensive to operate, the budget document notes. With the hoped-for seventh and eighth NSCs in doubt because of budget concerns, the shrinking number of legacy ships, as well as the Offshore Patrol Cutter seemingly years away from coming to fruition, the Coast Guard may have an upcoming capability gap on the high seas.

Analysts have begun suggesting that the service terminate the NSC and focus on building the OPCs, Papp said. But each time the Coast Guard conducts a fleet study, the results say it needs more ships, including ones that perform the functions of the National Security Cutter.

Papp did not directly say there would be a gap, but did lament the service’s dwindling resources in terms of patrolling the “middle layer.”

“How do you provide persistent sovereign presence in the offshore waters?” he asked. “You can’t do it with patrol boats. It takes ships and ships are expensive,” he said.

“I just don’t get it — why we’re not building more ships in this country,” he said.

House Homeland Security Committee ranking member Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, D-Miss., reacting to the 2013 budget proposal, said, “Although I am pleased that DHS has found places for efficiencies, I am concerned that key programs may be short-changed — particularly efforts to update the Coast Guard’s aged fleet.”

A committee staffer told National Defense that one of the congressman’s main concerns is that older ships are being decommissioned before new ones can be put in place.

Reader Comments

Re: Coast Guard May Face Capability Gap On the High Seas

If the government would take the fund being spent by the Navy on the Latoral Fleet and place that program under the USCG that would resolve some of the problem. High speed shallow draft ships are the domain of the USCG and not the Navy.

Bill Ritter on 02/17/2012 at 16:17

Re: Coast Guard May Face Capability Gap On the High Seas

How can an article with that title be written after $9B is spent on Deepwater and program cost has grown from $17B to $29B? That was what the program was supposed to fix.

"A committee staffer told National Defense that one of the congressman’s main concerns is that older ships are being decommissioned before new ones can be put in place."

If ICGS had done what they were paid for, what was covered by the performance guaranty, many of those aging cutters would have already been replaced. Look at the RAND report and replacement schedule ICGS signed up to. The CG keeps crying that money is the problem. Hold ICGS accountable for the 123s and the fraudulent performance guaranty and you would have BILLIONS of $.

Michael DeKort on 02/16/2012 at 19:15

Submit Your Reader's Comment Below
*Name
 
*eMail
 
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
*Comments
 
 
Refresh
Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.
*Characters
  
*Legal Notice

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.

 
 
  Bookmark and Share