Polar Star to be Decommissioned?

BruceRTalbot

10-Year Member
5-Year Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
268
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

PolarStar98481.jpg
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
DHS....the department with a smaller total budget than the Marine Corps....
 
Wrong budget authority, different buckets.

Tax dollars / Federal spending = same bucket. :wink:

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

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

And the AF complains their planes are "Eisenhower Era." ;)
 
SamAca10

Did you realize the ship in question for this thread was not JFK era?

It was commissioned in 1976?

http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/cgcPolarStar/

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.
 
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.
 
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.
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
 
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

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...
 
Back
Top