Polar Star to be Decommissioned?

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by BruceRTalbot, Nov 16, 2011.

  1. BruceRTalbot

    BruceRTalbot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    The House passed the Coast Guard funding bill that includes decommissioning the aging heavy ice breaker Polar Star home ported in Seattle.

    News reports relate that the Senate may reverse the House action to decommission the Polar Star. The White House issued a statement that it "strongly opposes" the House version of the reauthorization bill on grounds that it would prematurely remove the Polar Star from service and "create a significant gap in the nation's ice-breaking capability."

    The Bill re-authorizes end-of-year strength for active duty Coast Guard personnel of 47,000.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/193737-coast-guard-authorization-approved-in-house-vote

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2011
  2. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,750
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    The "significant gap" was created by a Congress and President that don't support keeping up ships. Know who doesn't have this problem? Russia, Canada, etc.
     
  3. SamAca10

    SamAca10 Ensign - DWO

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    2
    haha a "significant gap" in ice breaking capability by decommissioning the Star? Those old ice breakers have been sitting pier side for years now...We're way behind the curve as far as Arctic capability goes. With all of that ice melting, Russia, Canada, and even China is jockeying for position to get a piece of the oil and other resources up there, while we get left behind....good going Congress, good going Mr. President.
     
  4. goaliedad

    goaliedad Parent

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    35
  5. Packer

    Packer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,877
    Likes Received:
    5
  6. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,750
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Just wait for a massive loss of life, and no Coast Guard to save them.... that's what it's going to take for idiots in Washington to figure this out. By all means thought throw billions at Pakistan and Africa....


    Don't like it? Call your Congressman.
     
  7. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    About 6 fewer F-35s should cover it.
     
  8. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,274
    Likes Received:
    606
    The golden calf? How dare you!
     
  9. Bullet

    Bullet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    99
    Wrong budget authority, different buckets.

    Blame Dept of Homeland Security for not prioritizing the Polar Star, not DoD.
     
  10. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,750
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    DHS....the department with a smaller total budget than the Marine Corps....
     
  11. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    Tax dollars / Federal spending = same bucket. :wink:

    And the Coast Guard, who did not request funding for an icebreaker in their 2011 budget request.
     
  12. Bullet

    Bullet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    99
    Try using that logic when you propose using cuts in Non-discretionary budget dollars to pay for discretionary budget items. :wink:
     
  13. SamAca10

    SamAca10 Ensign - DWO

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    2
    Fact is that the Coast Guard is long due for an overhaul of the fleet. The Navy complains about their ships being "Reagan Era" ships, while our ships are "JFK Era"
     
  14. hornetguy

    hornetguy USAFA Cadet

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    129
    And the AF complains their planes are "Eisenhower Era." ;)
     
  15. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,796
    Likes Received:
    930
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2011
  16. SamAca10

    SamAca10 Ensign - DWO

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yes Pima, I do know that the polar rollers are from the 70's. But I was referring to the white hull fleet specifically and the fleet as a whole.

    The 210 MEC's and the 378 HEC"s are from the JFK era, and we expect them to do several different coast guard missions like drug interdiction, AMIO, or fisheries.

    It isn't just the red hull fleet that is old (although we should have replaced the polar rollers years ago as well). Probably the best cutters, besides the new PB's and NSC's, are the buoy tenders. Those are pretty new.
     
  17. 50stars

    50stars Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
  18. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,750
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Coast Guard has 4 ice breakers. Two are Polar Class (399'). They are constantly broken. One is set for decom. The third is HEALY (420'), only one. The final is a smaller, non-polar cutter (240') on the Great Lakes. There are also smaller ice breaking tugs for rivers (140').

    There is no comparison. The Coast Guard's last "Queen of the Fleet" was commissioned before the U.S. Air Force existed. The current "Queen of the Fleet" was commissioned before the Air Force could chew solid food. Can't really get into the "who's oldest" when it comes to gear... especially coming from the Air Force.

    Get rid of five B-2s...and you have more money than funds the entire Coast Guard.
     
  19. flieger83

    flieger83 Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    342
    I'm taking off my moderator hat here and putting on my regular forum member hat.

    I for one would really like to see folks quit bashing (either openly or subtly) other services when commenting re: USCG funding (or other services), assets, etc. And yes, I consider your comment re: B-2 above "bashing."

    The annual operating costs of a B-2 bomber is around $40.8M. Times 5 that's around $204M. And your comment: "Get rid of five B-2s...and you have more money than funds the entire Coast Guard."

    Not quite accurate.

    From the USCG's own website: "The FY 2012 President’s Budget requests $10.34 billion for the Coast Guard, including $8.68 billion in discretionary funding."

    That's Billion with a "B." And it's @ 50 times more than those B-2's cost annually.

    Now if you're speaking about the total development costs of the B-2 bomber and the "distributed costs" per aircraft, then we're in a completely different area and I agree; it's staggering. Put in proper perspective, when I watched the B-2 crash on takeoff at Anderson AFB years ago...it was, financially, the same as watching an aircraft carrier sink.

    I realize you'd like to see a larger USCG; and frankly, so would I. Their mission is unique and the area they're tasked to cover is huge! However we have to realize that this is the smallest armed force we have and its budget is commensurate. How those monies are spent is the bigger question.

    The bigger "evil" is the group that determines the budget funding and distribution. That would appear to me to be the big issue that needs addressing.

    But ending with comments that "dig" at other services...and folks here do that too often...is just inviting a "service versus service" bashing and we don't need that.

    Steve
    USAFA ALO
    USAFA '83
     
  20. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,274
    Likes Received:
    606
    My question is whether you dislike the "digs" at other services because of principle, or whether you dislike them because those comments are almost always directed at the Air Force. I don't know, but it's something I wonder about.

    Is it really a dig to say one service is soaking up valuable money that many believe is disproportionate to their recent and current (and projected) mission set? Or is it a citizen voicing his/her opinion about strategic spending? I think the latter is an absolute right we all have.

    Complaining about the B-2 vs. the Polar Icebreakers, when we ignore the parochial tendencies of folks who get their bread from acquisitions, is essentially a debate about what sort of strategic security we want to pay for...
     

Share This Page