In the August Edition of Aquisition Newsletter >>>http://forums.military.com/eve/forums?f=6810045131001&s=78919038&a=ptpc&x_popup=Y

There is a quote that gives me pause: "Refurbishing the 110-foot patrol
boats will help bridge the gap until the
153-foot Sentinel-class patrol boats
are delivered, while refurbishing the
210-foot and 270-foot medium endurance
cutters will help bridge the
gap until the Offshore Patrol Cutters
are designed and delivered.
“We repair and replace what we
can to provide the best value to the
operators and the public until new
ships arrive and relieve these legacy
cutters,” McClure said. “While not
designed as a service life extension
project per se, we anticipate gaining
up to 15 years of additional useful
life as a result of MEP.”

I think it is a mistake to expect that these legacy assets can be expected to be extended another 15 years. I believe that this will lead to a dangerous situation for out crews.
I believe a better use of the CG Yard would be to build a portion of the Sentinal Class in conjunction with BOLLINGER in an effort to bring these assets online quicker and at a savings that could be passed on to the OPC program!

As a historical note to reiterate my point: During WWII the yard constructed the 225’ cutters MENDOTA and PONTCHARTRAIN; in addtion fifty-eight 95 footers were built for the Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy throughout the decade of the 50’s into the early 1960’s; The first of fifty-three cutters built at the Yard under the 82’ patrol boat program was launched in February 1960. In May, 1965, the Yard sent its first 210’ medium endurance cutter down the shipways, the CGC CONFIDENCE. The 210’ Cutters CONFIDENCE, RESOLUTE, DURABLE, DECISIVE and ALERT were constructed by the skilled hands of the Yard. There is precedence that they have the capability! Why not use an effective resource for something other than MEP?
Just an old snipe thinking outloud!
Thoughts on the subject?

quote:

Originally posted by mftoomey:
I think it is a mistake to expect that these legacy assets can be expected to be extended another 15 years. I believe that this will lead to a dangerous situation for out crews. ..

Thoughts on the subject?

Have you seen the work the Yard is doing on the 110s, 210s, and 270s? I have and it's outstanding.

I don't know what kind of dangerous situation you believe this will create? What the Yard is doing during MEP is not a quick fluff & buff, it is an extensive M & R that includes replacing all suspect metal and upgrades to many systems that make them much safer than when they arrived, and in some cases better than they were 10 years ago.

The first 270 was commissioned in 1983, that makes it 25 years old, in 15 more years it will still be younger than the oldest 378 is today.

Even if the Yard were selected to build new vessels, they would not be able to produce them any faster than we are producing them today.

The initial production rate on new vessels is designed to be slow. It is called LRIP (Low Rate Initial Production) this allows times to conduct testing and evaluation on the first ones before the vessel goes into full production.

On the SENTINEL for example once Bollinger goes into to full rate production, they will deliver about one every two months, which is what we have money to pay for. I have no doubt that they could produce them faster, if Congress gave us the money to do it.

The 110, 210 and 270s are proven platforms. There is nothing that cannot be repaired on these vessels to extend their operational life. They may not be ideal for our current mission set, but they get the job done.

It is far better to stick with proven vessels, so we can take the time to develop the next generation of vessels, test them, work the bugs out and then go to full production.

It’s not about replacing vessels as soon as we can, it’s about replacing our current vessels with the right vessels for the current mission, and that takes time to do right.

MCPO Brett F. Ayer
Command Master Chief
Coast Guard Acquisition Directorate

Greetings Master Chief,

My intent was not to critize the Yard, but on the contrary to encourage greater use of the Yard to augment the commecial yards (with cost savings) the building of proven off the shelf designs that are all ready in service in other navies/coast guard applications in other nations.

I have seen first hand during my career what the Yard can do, (very competently I may add) and only wondered if bringing new FRC assets online faster might be a better approach than doubling the service life of a 15 year original service life of an Island Class Cutter (that have already been in service for 20 years. Getting more PB's online would in an of itself lend itself to fill the gap in U/W hours that the CG currently has.

You asked: "I don't know what kind of dangerous situation you believe this will create?"
My only point was in reference to the past documented incidents where legacy assets(ie: WHEC's previously FRAMed with wasted hull plating, numerous engineroom fires; WLBs previoisly SLEPed with failed davits and shaft and marine gear failures; WPBs with wasted hull plate) have caused me concern over the safety of our crews, that further extending of their service life may pose!

I did not intend to disparage the Newletter article, but only questioned the approach from a time line and asset critical standpoint. I applaud the efforts of the Office of Aquisition to address the improvement of our fleet especially during this difficult fiscal crisis.
Best Regards
MFT

The 110s will not be expected to last another 15 years. The first 153’ (SENTINEL) will be accepted 3rd qt of FY 11. If all goes well, we will be cranking them out in mass shortly thereafter.

The 15 years applies to the WMECs. Mostly the 270s.

I understand your concerns. However, if we could not produce a safe vessel with MEP, we would not be doing it. MEP is not producing new vessels, but it is doing what is needed to keep our old ones operating safely, and the Yard is doing outstanding work.

As far as CG Yard building new vessels, when a new project is started a complete analysis is done to determine the best way to procure a vessel. If CG Yard was the most effective way to acquire new vessels, that is where we would get them. All options are considered. If we split production we would incur significant additional cost. It is much more efficient to maintain one production facility. Just gearing up for production is a significant chunk of a projects budget. Add to that the additional cost of oversight, overhead, and configuration control issues, and you start to see that split production may not be the best idea.

I think the Yard does a great job, but I doubt they could crank out 2 WPBs a month like Bollinger can and still keep up with their other work. I’m not sure Bollinger is the best place to build a new WHEC, but when it comes to PBs they have their ducks in a row. It would hard to beat their production ability.

Be Safe.

Brett

Geesh. Why the heck don't people read the White Paper I wrote in 2001 for Lockheed-Martin (when I worked for a company helping to secure a successful DeepWater contract).

I wrote, and obviously LM didn't read it, nor did they give my company a guaranteed (as promised in several letters) cut of the work - including tech manuals on DVD, maintenance plans, DC plates, etc. Guarenteed an annual salary of $150K a year plus bonuses...then they cut us short...took the money and said sorry, we don't need you...

What I basically said in my paper started out by saying that the cutter fleet is in serious trouble. I said that it is just a matter of time before a Major Class "A" Mishap occurs and causes loss of life; hey I watched a BM needle gun the bow rail on a 210' in 1987...under all those layers of paint it looked swiss cheese with all the holes...DC weld patch, prime and painted. I also said do not modify the Island Class Cutters - replace them with off the shelf, ready to sail cutters.

The biggest problem I wrote about how the Coast Guard attaches too much emotion to their cutters - sure they have history - drug busts, memorable patrols, and I know that each ship really does have a life of their own and personality instead of taking a cutter with a 15 year design life and running the hell out of it for 40 years isn't prudent...

Deaf ears my report fell on; deaf ears.

Just replace a cutter with a new one, off the shelf and sail on...

quote:

The 110, 210 and 270s are proven platforms. There is nothing that cannot be repaired on these vessels to extend their operational life. They may not be ideal for our current mission set, but they get the job done.

Brett - it is just a matter of time before some major mishap occurs with a loss of life. Thirty plus year old cutters, operating at more then twice their designed annual operating tempo, MMA, SLEPs, etc, being slipped or delayed, etc. all add up to a way too dangerous situation. I hope it never happens and I know that damage control is a practiced art and skill onboard cutters...I hope I never open a newspaper, turn on the TV, or check the internet news and hear about a terrible tragedy involving a cutter...

quote:

It’s not about replacing vessels as soon as we can, it’s about replacing our current vessels with the right vessels for the current mission, and that takes time to do right.

Not sure just what makes the powers at Buzzards Point that great at predicting the future ??? All the other missions have been done with basic ships, adapted to the current mission. Basic sea keeping and propulsion systems are damned near sailor proof. That they cannot adapt current hull forms and update engineering and habilibility for another 25 year cutter, just kind of hints at "re-invent the wheel again". Someone wanting to practice what they picked up in PG school.

After creating the 378' battleship, shooting a rocket into the Pacific, then pulling any warfare suites off the ship, sure looked like in in the end, just another patrol cutter was what was needed.

Could have just as easily started a one for one replacement for the 378' and the 210' hull form. Funny that old articles announce the creation of a new class of cutter, and three to five years late they are pushing them down the ways.

Like Tim, just hoping not to turn on the news and watch coverage of some cutter in serious trouble.

quote:

The initial production rate on new vessels is designed to be slow. It is called LRIP (Low Rate Initial Production) this allows times to conduct testing and evaluation on the first ones before the vessel goes into full production.

Sounds like you were paying attention in ACQ101 class

To the original question: I don't see how producing a product in a Union shop in a high-cost state would be cheaper than producing the same product in a non-Union shop in a low-cost state, especially when the latter has more extensive and more recent and more relevant experience.

Well I don't want to damper the conversation to much but I just transfered off Confidence (May)and I was on the ship shortly after the MEP process. The work completed by the yard was average at best, I will leave it at that. Now that I'm ATG I see all the 210' coming out of the yard for Ready For Sea inspections and the quality of work is about the same. As for the rest of the fleet we have some serious challenges over the next ten years or so. First, the 210' and 378' over all are not in very good shape; there are exceptions but not many. Second, as everyone is already aware there's no on site relief coming anytime soon for these legacy cutters. Finally, and I think most importantly we have lost a significant amount of corporate knowledge across the board on 210', 270' & 378' platforms and its starting to show. I don't know what the answers will be for solving these difficult challenges but I'm hopeful the cutter fleet will survive.

Man that sounded super negative but that's my observation of the aging cutter fleet.

You were on the Connie right after MEP? I was on the Connie right after MEP. What rating were you?

I don't remember any major problems, other than having a lawyer for an XO, a CO that had a severe case of navy-envy and admiralass-kissitis, and the absolute biggest ******* in the history of *******dom for department head.

RW, MEP is the new program, you were on Connie after MMA. That was the original mid life overhaul.

Confidence came out of MEP in December 2006 and I reported aboard in June 07, I was the MPA.

Wow, two "midlife" rebuilds, do they think she's going to last forever?