Does any on knows where is the FRC standing right now? Last I heard wa last summer...

The FRC is currently a hole in the water to pour government money into.

quote:

Originally posted by edgykatid:
The FRC is currently a hole in the water to pour government money into.

Isnt that the meaning of boat???

Yeah, but you'd think that the government would be a little smarter than Joe Six Pack.

Apparently they aren't.

quote:

Originally posted by ELWEPO:
Does any on knows where is the FRC standing right now? Last I heard wa last summer...

The proposals are being looked at. If you would like to know what the Coast Guard is asking for go to www.fbo.gov and do a search for "Fast Response Cutter B Class" proposal # HSCG23-07-R-AFR001

Be Safe

Thanks MC!

I'm looking forward to see what the USCG is going to choose... there are many interesting options (Patrol Craft) world wide...


V/r

quote:

Yeah, but you'd think that the government would be a little smarter than Joe Six Pack.

Did you just get here? I was military for 23.75 years and civil service for 5, and I would never expect the guv'mint to be smarter than a mildly intelligent rock.

No, didn't just get here. I'm disappointed.

Most of the officers I met while serving were bright. Some were bright and arrogant. Some were bright and proactive. Some were a shade less than bright but malleable and good officers.

I can't say the same for the civil service corps, unfortunately. There's some intelligence in the turkey farms I waded through at the HQ building but it is mostly muted because they've been ground down to nubs or can't see past the fake window hanging in their cube.

When I look at this project I see nothing. On its face it should be about building boats. The focus should be there to build something top notch. There is no focus, and furthermore, there is no vision as to what the Coast Guard will be in 5, 10, 20 or 30 years from now. The Coast Guard will not be remembered for it's mediocre boondoggled fleet of Deepwater ships other than memories of cost overruns and poor decision making by people like me. To the general public, the Coast Guard saves people.

So, to that extent, the Coast Guard should build the ships we need for fisheries patrols in Alaska and the Northeast, and concentrate on smaller, more efficient patrol boats so that we can start to do the things we should be doing, like port security and close border patrols around major ports.

We're stuck in the same mindset. Sit in a box and search for a needle in the haystack. Build up an intelligence program to make the needle a little bigger. The hay hasn't changed.

We can brag about our nice new ships when they are finished, but will it change how we responded to the San Francisco oil spill? We can brag about busting a single fella with a dog pooping all over his sailboat, carrying a few kilos of cocaine, floating out in the middle of nowhere, but how many fastboats run our nonexistent drug dragnet around Florida?

We can load up a flight deck with migrants heading to our shores and brag about that, but isn't it more effective to guard the Mona pass as in recent Dominican interdictions? Do we need a 400 foot hotel ship, or a more nimble fleet of ships that are able to move around quicker and per chance come around to the south or southwest coast of Haiti? And, we can brag about Caribbean nation building, showing the flag, or whatever you want to call it by bringing in a big bad ship into port, or we can be more effective with smaller patrol boats with a smaller but more powerful message, like we're in your ports more often because we're off your coasts all the time.

Forgive my rant, but I have a great disdain for this project because it is costing me money. Taxpayer money. I've seen the "machine" in action and we can do a lot better. The project has neither focus nor vistion, and I'm afraid that the Coast Guard's vision is myopic, to say the least.

Dan, I guess I'm missing your point.

You say the FRC is a hole to throw money into, and then you write a thesis on why we need an FRC?

The bottom line is we are buying 8 NSCs to meet our offshore mission requirements. I don’t believe 8 adds up to boondoggle when we have missions that require these resources. When all is said and done, we will have fewer large cutters than we have ever had.

The FRC is being purchased for all the reasons you stated. By purchasing an off the shelf product we save on both RD costs and long term risk. I’m not sure from your post what you would do different?

As always, be safe.

Brett,

Come on now, let's be realistic. The Coast Guard has already spent millions of dollars on R & D for the FRC only to reject the composite hull design that was spewed forth by the contract. So, the answer is to spend millions more! WHY?

I don't need to list all of the other problems with every single facet of the program. You know them as well as I do. And, as you know, I wasn't silent about this when I was active duty either. Just today the Washington Post published another article concerning the Coast Guard looking for its $96 million refund for the scrap metal 123s.

Now, I have a question for you. How much money was spent on FRC version one before the Coast Guard said they didn't want it? Will that money be refunded?

And, offshore mission requirements are a very vague answer for what has, in fact, been a boondoggle so far. What are they? List them, let's parse it out, removing this crazy new intel push that the Coast Guard seems to be getting into. UAVs? Who needs 'em? The ocean, despite all of the shipping traffic, is a pretty barren place that can be better scanned via satellite. We need 400' ships for what? And if we need them, why only 8? A partial answer is so that we can work the hell out of the crews of those ships, which will do the work of the 12 HECs, isolate 400' coasties to port and starboard ship/shore rotations so that operating and maintenance expertise, training, etc is fully utilized, (oh yeah, I sat in THOSE meetings). Your first tour to a 400' ship will not be your last!

We don't need a 400' ship parked in the middle of the Caribbean. All of the intel, air surveillance, etc can be performed from terra firma.

My point is that we don't need the the 400' ships or the FRCs. Small, nimble patrol boats will work with the exception of ALPATS and northeast fisheries. The 400 footers should be FISHERIES ships. Our deepwater missions are a waste of money. Let's set up the patrol boat "pickets" where we need to better perform our missions. I'd rather see 20 patrol boats off the coast of Florida than one lumbering ship that can collect data that is mostly originated from land.

In terms of migrant interdiction, a tug a barge works just as well with patrol boats doing the work faster.

Oh yes, there is some sarcasm in this post, but I won't tell you where!

I'll add just a little more, anectodal, oblique reference....

A friend of mine, I just learned when I got my retiree newsletter in the mail yesterday, FSC David Pitzer, my age, a port and starboard ship/shore FSC, died on January 31st.

We need ships and port and starboard ship/shore rotations like we need a hole in the head.

Dan,

Ok, I got it you don’t like some of decisions that have been made in the past and you don't see a need for large cutters, or some of the program requirements for those cutters.

I’m not trying to spoil a good rant, but how does that feed back into the FRC.

You say we need more small cutters; well that is what the FRC is.

You say we need a bunch of them, which is what we will be buying.

You say mistakes were made in the past. While true, how does that make what we are doing now with the FRC a mistake?

Do me a favor and look at the FRC spec and let me know which of the requirements are unnecessary. I have read them and so far, I like what I see.

Be Safe.

Not interested in reading that deep. I have another life!

But you keep fighting the good fight. Your rose colored glasses will slowly be removed after you retire.

And speaking of retirement, when will that be?

Oh, by the way,

You didn't refute a single word I said!

quote:

Originally posted by edgykatid:
Oh, by the way,

You didn't refute a single word I said!

I wasn't trying to

No retirement soon anyway, I'll stick around as long as I'm still having fun, and so far I am.

Be Safe Dan.

Your arguments are spoken like a true sandpeep.

One of our missions is National Defense Readiness. That means that our cutters are to be integrated with Navy Fleets when needed. The new NSC's have the capability of being modularly refitted for special mission purposes with very little yard time (depending on the situation, they may not even need to come out of the water). But if you choose to ignore the fact that we are also a military service, well, that's YOUR head in the sand.

The UAV is dead, so that point is already addressed.

So, we have intel on drug smugglers coming from Columbia through the Caribbean. What do we do then? Wait for them to get into our waters? Perhaps you would prefer that we just let them come right into our harbors, where we politely arrest them. Only problem, what if those bales aren't all cocaine? What happens if they hit the beach and ditch their craft and have people come out of the weeds to scurry off with the contraband? The purpose of the cutter sitting in the middle of the ocean is to keep crap like that from hitting our waters in the first place.

I'm sure the guys on the PB's up in the Bering and North Atlantic, doing FISHERIES PATROLS, wish their ship was just a little bigger than some of the waves they are facing. I remember escorting 4 110's back from the Med, they were getting their a$$e$ kicked while we enjoyed the stable platform of our 378.

Furthermore, a larger ship, that is capable of sitting off shore for longer periods of time is more cost-efficient in the long run. It allows us to maintain a presence over a longer period of time, which becomes a deterrant. It's like an offensive line in football.

And finally, just because you don't want to deal with a ship/shore rotation, doesn't mean everyone doesn't. If someone wants to have a career on land, that's what PERSRUs and AIRSTA's are for.

FT,

Did you know the reason the FT rating is history is because of port and starboard sea duty rotation? FTs wanted to be sandpeeps too, and they exercised their option by getting sandpeep jobs outside the Coast Guard, so now you are an Electronics Technician and the sea to shore ratio is better for you so you can be more of a sandpeep too. Even SRB bribes couldn't keep FTs in. And don't you forget it.

I would like you to name the last 5 times that a Coast Guard big gun was used in the name of National Defense. In a war, a conflict, whatever. Since you are an ET who came from an extinct rating they should just rattle right off, it's part of your legacy rating's history. I remember one patrol where we fired off over 200 high explosive rounds into the open ocean just to get rid of them.

I can say factually that the worse the sea/shore rotation is, the higher attrition rate there is for a given rating. There was more than one study done on that very issue. Make sea/shore ratios more attractive, and there is more payback on your human resources investment.

I would also like you to name the last war in which our WMECs/WHECs played a majority role (meaning, the majority of our force was involved in theater) because they had a big gun on the bow. What was/is the primary role of the Coast Guard in Iraq, and how many 378s are currently in theater? What was the maximum number of WHECs in theater in Iraq at any one point in time?

Also, you didn't entirely read what I wrote above. I specifically excluded fisheries patrols, and relegated the larger cutters to that. That's really all we need them for. We don't shoot the big guns at anything except the open ocean or a target pulled behind a tug boat. We don't shoot crabbers.

Finally, at the end of the day, it's about the people. The harder they get used, the less they want to stick around. The tools people use are important, ships, patrol boats, planes, whatever. But the harder the tools are used the fewer people will want to use them.

Now, back to the FRC. I have two questions to pose.

1. Do you think that Coast Guard engineers are capable of designing an FRC without contractor assistance?

2. Do you think the Coast Guard yardbirds are capable of building those ships?

And YES, the objective of drug runners is to get to shore.

Where do you think the most effective place to catch a drug runnter is? I'd say it's in that last couple of miles.

Well gee, I didn't know anything about JRR, I just woke up one day and had a different patch on my Bravo jacket. Yes, I am well versed in why our rate was absorbed, and I also know that a great many of us fought JRR. We didn't want it, it was forced upon us. And I still have yet to have a complete tour at a land unit.

The reason for the attrition rate among FT's was, contrary to popular belief, not due to ship/shore rotation, but rather because people were taking the training they received and getting large paying jobs on the outside after only 3 years in rate. Granted, the attrition rate was a big influence in JRR, because they couldn't keep FT's in service. But it was the influence of money on the outside that drove people out.

The last 5 times a Cutter fired the big gun in the name of National Defense. Well, I'll discount when we fired warning shots at a go-fast and say that Vietnam was the LAST time that any big gun was fired for shore bombardment from a Cutter. (That was also the first time that ocean going cutters were deployed into a war zone, but we're not here for an E-PME lesson). All other times they were fired were in Pre-Vietnam conflicts, excluding Korea, and of course, that I don't need to mention USCG serving on Navy vessels during WWII.

You fired those rounds because your gun crews needed training on their billets. Do you think we dress up our fire parties in FFE's just because we want to make sure the crotch hasn't rotted out of them?

Again, WWII was the last war in which the majority of our ships played a role, of course, they were Navy ships, but that's getting into that whole wartime thing. That's why the first ocean going CGC's served in Vietnam. All other conflicts they were technically Navy vessels. With regards to Iraq, well, it depends on where the ship is located that determines it's role. I know on DALLAS, we had a different mission and purpose than BOUTWELL did in 03, but we were in the Eastern Med, they were in the Persian Gulf (oh, 2 was the answer to that next question. . .I was on one of them at the time).

In general, the use of the big gun is going away throughout all naval services. Why get in close enough to fire a big gun when a missle can do the same thing from further away? Research what guns are going on the LCS. Or don't, I'll tell you, it's the same one we currently have on the NSC.

I got what you said about fisheries, I guess I wasn't clear enough in justifying the need for large cutters other than war and the Bering. It sucks sitting in the middle of the ocean, but it needs to get done. I used the football analogy to make you understand why we would rather put ships further out. It's the same argument I always used to have with DCCT members that tried to take my gun crews away to put up a smoke boundry in a drill. If we set up a wall of lead around the ship, to prevent the bad guys from getting close to us, there is less need for smoke curtains inside the ship. You can't take aways the outer defenses then complain when something happens closer to home. There is a need for sentries further away from home. That is why we need larger Cutters.

To answer your questions regarding the FRC's, no, that answers both of them, at least IMHO. But being at the shipyard where the NSC's are being built, I have a new found perspective on ship design and construction.

And finally, you are absolutely right, it is about the people. That is the most intelligent thing anyone has said on this board in years. And I believe that low retention is just as much a product of poor leadership as it is hard work. I know most of us on here have at times been doing crappy jobs in horrible conditions, but it didn't break us. Chances are, our leaders had something to do with keeping our spirits up. I've seen change course 180 degrees with just a change of command, the mission didn't change, nor did the conditions, but the leader did.

Ok. I think the big points where we differ are that, although the Coast Guard is a military service, they aren't necessarily a war fighting service like they were during the World War II years (we may somewhat agree on that though), and that I do believe that Coast Guard organic engineering and construction of ships and patrol boats is possible and a lot cheaper than hiring a contractor to do it.

If I could project into the future, I don't see the future of warfare to be anything like it was 65 years ago, and our fleet shouldn't be reflective of that. The imminent threat is against innocent people who live and work every day, not against naval vessels, yet they have, properly equipped, the means to take out shore based targets from sea. Not a Coast Guard mission, hasn't been for a very long time, nor will it be in the future. If I can further project, the only use for a WW-II or Vietnam type Coast Guard assault may be off North Korea (where we'd be blown away by the Chinese), or perhaps one of the coastal African countries.

In terms of deepwater deterrance, i.e. law enforcment deterrance, I maintain that it has really outlived its usfefulness; I believe that DHS, over time, will move the Coast Guard in a more localized direction and there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth as it happens. The first salvo was in this year's Congressional budget for the Coast Guard that called for port security at LNG plants. The Coast Guard won't hear the last of that, and it will eventually happen. DHS and Congress, I think, will eventually morph the Coast Guard to something that we won't recognize. The only constant will be certain treaties regarding search and rescue and our ability to respond within our promised regions, but we have mission creeped ourselves into other things with those treaty driven assets.

Anyway, organic abilities are the generation of my disdain for the Deepwater project. I think we can do all of this in house instead of paying $24 billion for half assed contractor projects. If we don't have the organic expertise then what exactly is the Coast Guard academy teaching naval engineers these days? And why do we have a Coast Guard yard that can't build a boat? This speaks far more to me than the project itself -- we have ignored the qualities inherent in Coast Guard officers and enlisted to design and build a ship that only they innately know how to do. My disdain is even greater because, in the opinion of some, not only can't we design and build a boat, but we failed to manage a project to design and build a boat. It makes me angry beyond words.