123 Wpb Suspended Operations

[MKC M. J. Petrich]

After being on a A-Class 110 for two years I knew this wasn't going to work.

SUBJ: 123 WPB SUSPENDED OPERATIONS
A. COMDT COGARD WASHINGTON DC 281630Z APR 06, NOTAL
1. CANCEL REF A.
2. DUE TO ONGOING ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DAMAGE ON THE 123 FOOT
WPB FLEET, I AM SUSPENDING OPERATIONS OF THESE EIGHT CUTTERS.
3. DESPITE THE BEST EFFORTS OF THE CREWS AND THE SUPPORT COMMUNITY,
THE CONTINUING DEFORMATION OF THE 123 HULLS WOULD REQUIRE EVEN MORE
STRINGENT OPERATIONAL RESTRICTIONS TO SAFELY OPERATE THEM. THESE
RESTRICTIONS ARE SUCH THAT 123 WPBS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PATROL IN
SEAS ABOVE 5 FEET, MAKING THEM NO LONGER OPERATIONALLY EFFECTIVE.
4. I REALIZE THIS DECISION WILL POSE SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL
CHALLENGES TO MAKE UP THESE LOST PATROL BOAT HOURS. WE ARE
AGGRESSIVELY WORKING ON BOTH LONG AND SHORT TERM SOLUTIONS TO
ENSURE THE COAST GUARD CAN MEET ITS MISSION REQUIREMENTS IN THE D7
AOR.
5. I WILL MEET WITH THE 123 WPB CREWS TODAY TO THANK THEM FOR THEIR
VALIANT EFFORTS AND ASSURE THEM THAT THEIR SAFETY AND WELL-BEING
ARE MY TOP PRIORITIES. ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERSONNEL PROCESSES WILL
BE PUT IN PLACE TO ADDRESS THEIR UNIQUE SITUATIONS AND FACILITATE
THEIR CONTINUED CAREER SUCCESS.
6. ACTION: EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, SUSPEND ALL OPERATIONS OF THE 123
WPBS AND PLACE THEM IN CHARLIE STATUS. ATLANTIC AREA AND DISTRICT
SEVEN PROCEED WITH PLANNING TO BEST UTILIZE THE 123 WPB CREWS IN
SUPPORT OF CURRENT OPERATIONS. CG-3/4/8 AND G-D/A EXPLORE ALL
AVAILABLE OPTIONS TO CLOSE THE WPB PERFORMANCE GAP.
7. POC: CAPTAIN J. X. MONAGHAN, COMDT (CG-37RCU), (202)372-2321.
8. INTERNET RELEASE AUTHORIZED.
9. ADM T. W. ALLEN, COMMANDANT, SENDS.

[MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)]

I'm glad the COMDT made the decision based on the crew's safety!! He know's he's going to take heat for this decision (losing between 15,000-20,000 underway hours), yet he still made it.

Craig

[ASTC Ronny German]

Bravo Zulu!! Looks like the right decision has been made. I'm obviously not a 123 sailor, but from what I heard at the CPO Academy from WPB Sailors, it seems like we tried to give it our best effort to make it happen and just came up short.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

I'm glad the COMDT made the decision based on the crew's safety!!

I would like to think the Commandant made the decision as you have said.

With the IG's report in draft form, and the amount of negative press, I don't know.

If the Admiral made it on the basis of the IG's investigation ... launched in Feb and ended recently ... I wonder what story his own people have been feeding him since the news broke.

Was this suspension of operations proactive or reactionary?

All in all, I personally think the action is warranted.

Damm ... I can be cynical in my old age.

[MKC Art Bailly (ret)]

I’m glad to see the Admiral stepping up to the plate and suspending operation regardless of his motives. This project should have never been started in the first place. The 110’s were designed as a 10 year throw away cutter (ever look at how thick the haul plate is?? Scary) and then some one comes up with a brilliant idea to add another 13 feet to the haul of boats that are already 5+ years past their intended life. I’m not a structural engineer but even I knew it wasn’t going to work when they came up with this plan. He did the right thing by correcting someone else mistake before one of these boats sinks at the pier or underway in mild seas.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Art, I agree no matter what motivated him to halt operations he did the right thing. I have been on a 110 for a bit and didn't really see adding 13 feet as realistic. Things are designed for thier intended use, if the 110 had been originally designed with the idea to extend it later down the road then it probably wouldn't be an issue., maybe it was but I doubt it. think about where we could've better used the money.

Todd

[BMC Ken Gouge]

You can remove a few open billets from the 07 shopping list AND add some names with what should be high transfer priority looking for jobs...

Working frequently in the Key West AOR with these boats I was amazed some of the stories I heard from the crews. Worst one recently was the cutter that had to manually engage the red gears, because of a broken something or other... and they couldn't secure their engines because they might not be able to restart them. They had to use the same starter to crank both engines and it was giving out.

I wish the crews well, and hope they get where they want to be after what they've endured.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Admiral Allen is a man of action! He held an all-hands at Sector Key West today (two of them actually, one for the 123' crews then another for everyone else) and this message was released at almost immediately after he spoke about it.

I have heard a lot about each of the Commandants that there have been since I have joined and I have heard the most positive comments about our current one. Today, I got to see and hear him in person and I agree with what I have been hearing from everyone else.

I have to think that his father being a Chief has a lot to do with that! He did make a good reference to "asking the Chief" and talking to his father.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

Admiral Allen listens to us bitch and whine - but he is still a man of "fact". He put some very good people - that he trusts - on the IG investigation... and they have made their recommendations.

The handwriting is on the wall, and he's seen it. If it were just that a bunch of Coasties were complaining, we'd still have the 123's, of that I am sure. It isn't, though. We complained AND the best operators, engineers and bean counters have said that the project is a poor choice.

So, losing out on MILLIONS that we can ill afford to spare, he has shut it down.

I think it's both proactive AND reactive - and a darned fine decision. Good for him for making the very hard decision - and good for us that he made it. BZ!

[BMCS Dave Considine]

I found it amazing that a 123' Cutter would have had stricter environmental limitations than my 25' RB-S (5' seas for the cutter, 6' for the RB-S). Good decision on the Commandants part.

[BMC Jeffrey Zappen]

Not only did he make a special trip to Key West to personally "pass the word" to the crews, he also made a stop in Savannah, GA to talk with the VASHON crew beacuse they were unable to make it due to several problems with their cutter.

Right is right! Good call for ADM Allen!

Jeff

[BMC M Love]

I agree Jeff, whether the Admiral's decision was reationary or proactive it was a good call. Now we should focus on getting replacements for the 123s and the 110. I know there are plans in place with deep water but hopefully this will speed things up.

Mike

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I am personally saddened by VASHON being "done". I spent two great years on her in Puerto Rico. I have many fond memories of her.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

So now that we have the 123's laid up, can anyone tell me what Deepwater has actually produced that works?

[MKC Art Bailly (ret)]

Nothing yet but they have stepped up the time line for the new FRC.
Here's the link to the Deepwater Home page http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-a/deepwater/default.htm
And this is the artical about the FRC and FRC-B http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2360212.php

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Just because the BERTHOLF is christened and in the water does it mean that it actually works.

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

So now that we have the 123's laid up, can anyone tell me what Deepwater has actually produced that works?


They have a really cool brochure :)

Brett

[PACS Steve Carleton]

They have a really cool brochure :)

Brett

And 8 broken 123's -- :D

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Steve, the BERTHOLF is a success. I had two members of its mess in my class, and they'd both tell you that its everything that we're billing it as. We've also done the billet structures for boats that haven't even been built yet. Regardless of how cynical you might want to be, that's still a success. Peteluma has already created some state of the art training facilities for these cutters, with full scale mock ups of the bridge and some of the engineering systems. The pre-comm crews are listing unseen issues prior to sailing her around to Alemeda. Other assets will be available faster than what we're hoping for. There are successes....... just lot a lot of tangible ones.

And I never counted the 123's as deep water assets. I think they were a quick add on so we could show congress some kind of progress. I wouldn't say that they're broken, they just don't meet our needs. But in failing to meet our needs they allowed us to see one of our most recent deepwater successes. Someone at the helm who isn't going to accept substandard products. Someone who's going to say enough. Someone who is going to go out and look people in the eye and tell them, I'm shutting your boat down, and here's why. Someone who is getting ready to tell the rest of us what he's seen so far, and where we're going to go from here. Sitrep III should be out around the 15th, and we'll all know where we stand.

[BMCS John Brady - Ret.]

Stu,

You wrote:
And I never counted the 123's as deep water assets. I think they were a quick add on so we could show congress some kind of progress. I wouldn't say that they're broken, (then why can't they go out in seas greater then 5ft??) they just don't meet our needs. But in failing to meet our needs they allowed us to see one of our most recent deepwater successes (Which Are????). Someone at the helm who isn't going to accept substandard products. Someone who's going to say enough. Someone who is going to go out and look people in the eye and tell them, I'm shutting your boat down, and here's why(Which is they are broke and UNSAFE). Someone who is getting ready to tell the rest of us what he's seen so far, and where we're going to go from here. Sitrep III should be out around the 15th, and we'll all know where we stand. (YEARS and how many $$$$$$'s later???)


Stu, I do admire your always rosy outlook but perhaps a reality check is in order and this is in no way a reflection of the crews who from what I understand worked extremely hard to keep em' operating, But did you know?
-- That when those 110's were moored to have the additional 13ft
nothing (nuttin, no thing, nada) was done in the engine room.
-- All PPE, DC Equip was put in temp storage (no new stuff issued)
trust me when I say this stuff needed to be replaced.
-- Bollinger Shipyard was not a big fan of this plan and offered to build
a brand new WPB for an additional $600K that's right a brand new
WPB.
-- These things were unsafe, did you here the operating restrictions??
-- Regardless of your opinion the 123's were touted by Deepwater as
an Asset, that is what we (the USCG) told Congress and the US
taxpayer.

I spent some time in Lockport during the summer of 2005 and got to see these things first hand. It is just a shame that an 87' WPB (not a Deepwater asset...) is more capable then a 123' WPB. Please please please just show me just one example of a Deepwater success (please refrain from the slick posters/pamphlets or the totally awesome logo).

I do agree the COMDT did the right thing, what we as BM's learned first and foremost ----CREW - VESSEL -MISSION.

JB

[MKC Art Bailly (ret)]

And I never counted the 123's as deep water assets. Where do you think the money came from to extend them 13 ft???? Deepwater.
I wouldn't say that they're broken, they just don't meet our needs
Umm the Admiral had to make 2 stops to inform one cutter that couldn’t make it because it was broken/couldn’t sail, and if cracks in the haul and buckling frames don't count as broken I don’t know what does.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, the one success that I was referring to with that statement was the COMDT. A little history, a previous COMDT appeared before congress and spoke about deepwater progress,....... and the CG lost lots of money. The current COMDT reviewed the operating parameters and reports available and said no more. This asset is not capable of meeting our needs. Watch and see if can't get the money to bring more boats on line faster.
How long have you heard people complaining about the 123's ? How many times have you heard someone say that they aren't building anymore ? How many times have you heard people say they were going to start building them again ? You're right John, how many years and how many dollars later ? But how long has this guy been at the helm ? We can't keep beating ourselves up over the spilt milk. For everyone who saw what a bad idea this was five years ago,.... how many memos did you write notifying your Chain of Command that it wouldn't work ? You don't have to write any now, this COMDT shut it down. What has deepwater done for us ? Its given us a COMDT that makes decisions to secure our future, and future successes. Sorry, I call'em the way I see 'em.
John, you don't think that the BERTHOLF is a success story ? It's not a poster, you can actually walk the decks. She has a crew assigned to her. I never thought I'd see one floating during my career.

Art, the 123's were an add on. Ask around. Under a previous administartion we needed to show some success. Enter the 123's which "became" deepwater assets.
And if they truely are broken, I'd expect them to become part of a reef somewhere soon. I don't see that happening. I see them being transferred to some agency that won't be using them in seas greater than 5'. Time will be the judge of that, until then, I'll keep the rose colored glasses where they're at.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I for one am certainly pleased with what I have seen from our COMDT. I have not met him or heard him speak personally, but from the decisions that I have seen that effect the field, I think he is spot on. There is talk that the Coast Guard is not a business... That is correct. A business needs to produce revenue to survive. However, the Coast Guard does not have an endless budget and sound business decisions and fiscal management need to be employed in order to maximize our effectivness. This seems like a sound business decision as well as one to protect the safety and welfare of the crews. We (the Coast Guard) will have to make some adjustments in the short term, but the long term results will pay off. That is a sound business decision. I am sure glad to see that rather than a political decision.

[BMCS John Brady - Ret.]

Stu,
Not to dissect your posts but you did say and I quote “I wouldn't say that they're broke” and “There are successes....... just not a lot of tangible ones”
So please answer those questions I asked, if they weren’t broke why did the COMDT shut em’ down? And Where are the other successes? Please point out tangible or untangible (again the fancy pamphlet and super cool logo do not count).

When we go to a company and tell them to study us and then tell them to build the platforms we need for the mission(s) that they defined then that equals DEEPWATER or TROUBLE…. And that is what happened. Also No I did not route a memo, please.


Jim,

I have had dinner and face to face time with the MAN and he is all that. This is something I thought he would do months ago….. He is a man of action.

JB

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John I thought I did list some of them. Do you want me to cut and paste my own posts ? We've floated our first hull. We've crewed her. We have built facilities to train future crews. Those are all tangible successes that you can lay your hands on. We've listed gaps in future billet structures and are augmenting the shore side support teams. We have people who have met the logistic needs of hulls we haven't even created yet. We've had alot of success that had to occur before the first metal ever got wet. You guys are talking like we've throw millions of dollars into something that has produces nothing. Our future cutters are being realized. The first one is here. They have an operational schedule for it already. The crew knows when they'll be moving her around to Ca. Do you not see that as being a success ?
And the 123's don't meet our needs. They can still be used by someone else for other purposes. Find an agency that needs something that won't go out in five foot seas. They just don't meet the Coast Guards needs. Are we seeing them get damaged when they didn't live up to our expectations, yes. That's how we found out that they don't meet our needs. Let's see where they end up. If they wind up as part of a reef, or in a scrap bin, I'll admit that they're broken. If they get put to use by someone else, you and Art can admit that they didn't meet our needs.

And what's wrong with writing a memo ? That's how changes get done. Word of mouth only goes so far. Maybe if some of the people who knew that this project wouldn't have work, would have gotten that information to the right people earlier, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
And how many months ago did you think the COMDT was going to do something about this ? He's been doing this job for less than six months. We've seen alot of stuff happen in those six months. Next time you have the opportunity for that face to face ask him if he'd like see more Memos coming from the field. He puts alot of trust in his senior leadership to do just that. Our class had a tele-conference with him the other day. He suggested that we send all of our suggestions up through MCOCG Bowen. They want to know what's going on. They're relying on us to tell them. It's not send a Memo, please. It's Please, send a Memo.

[BMCS John Brady - Ret.]

Stu,

Again I do truly admire your outlook. I too admonish my crew on "Attitude" a saying I have on my door, basically it says you and you alone are in control of your own attitude. But this is not a case of disgruntledness, rather a dose of realism.

A cutter and A training mockup after years and years and millions and millions. Imagine what would happen to an OIC if we wasted this much time or money, and we can argue many things but at the end of the day there has been a waste of time and money.

Some more facts:

-- There is no PRO(project residence office) for the shipbuilding, so in order to make even the smallest decision (say the trim on the CO's cabin door) it may take months to get through all the different layers of layers. Just FYI w/ a PRO decisions could be made onsite by a KO or KO rep....

-- There is a certain shipyard that will be paid millions (yes millions) because of previous contractual agreements w/ the USCG.... Oh and they are getting paid NOT to build a boat.

Can you see the headlines " USCG gives unsafe 123's to (insert third world country here) and entire crew perishes in storm" If they are unsafe for us there is no way no way we are going to find another floating use for them. Truly sad.

I agree we have seen a bunch in the last 6 months, he is going to do great things.

Finally as far the memo goes, A wise old BMC once told me know where the wind is coming from before you pee......

[MKC Art Bailly (ret)]

As far as the 123's I think you're way in left field or la la land Stu but as far a results go I'll give you some more ammunition. Deepwater does not only cover ship's. We have many H65's flying out there with new more powerful engines, UAV's, the HITRON Observes 100th Interdiction, Deepwater C4ISR Upgrade Completed on USCGC Morgenthau. In March 06 Lockheed Martin and aircraft maker EADS CASA recently rolled out the first production airframe of the HC-235A medium range surveillance maritime patrol aircraft just to list a few.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, look at what some on the other services have spent on a single aircraft, and our deepwater funds are dwarfed in comparison. The bottom line is we need to replace our aged fleet. That's going to cost money. Signing into performance based contracts costs money. Some companies see a government agency, and only see money.
We're going to have set backs.... be we can't afford to do nothing. We have to moderize the fleet.
I have less of a problem with the money we just spent proving these hulls won't meet our needs than I do with other ways our government spends its money. And we just turned off the faucet with the 123's. We can start looking somewhere else for the solution. We live and we learn.

I'm not wise, just old, however I will tell you, that if no one wants to tell the emporer he has no clothes, we're going to have to keep looking at the naked man. If something isn't working, someone has to say something. Memos are the way we do business.

As far as sayings goes, and the fate of these boats, Try, if someone gives you lemons, make lemonade. Give them to state agencies for security patrols inside harbors, lakes or rivers. Use them anywhere you don't have a sea state issue.

Art, I appreciate the back up. You don't have to agree with me about the 123's, I could very well be wrong. But there are successes with deepwater. As you've pointed out, we just have to look for them.

[MKC Art Bailly (ret)]

More of what we have accomplished (taken from the deepwater web site)
Contract Awarded for the First Long Range Interceptor
Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS) - a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman - recently awarded a subcontract to Willard Marine, Inc., of Anaheim, Calif., a contract to provide Integrated Deepwater System with the first in class Long Range Interceptor (LRI).

The 11-meter (35-foot) LRI is a new Rigid-Hull Inflatable small boat being introduced for the National Security Cutter (NSC) and Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC). The twin diesel and waterjet-powered LRI will displace approximately 10 tons, and is capable of carrying up to 14 personnel with 150 lbs. of cargo.The boat is designed for speeds up to 45 knots, with endurance rated at 10 hours or 400 nautical miles.Other unique features for the LRI include an enclosed cabin, radar, slam mitigating seats, and over-the-horizon capabilities including SATCOM and GPS.The benefit of these features result in decreased crew fatigue, increased control and handling, faster and more effective prosecution, and real-time tracking and seamless Common Operational Picture-Maritime Domain Awareness..

Personnel from ICGS met members from Willard Marine and other potential suppliers in November during the Innovation & Industry Days 2005 held in Miami.



Last Updated: 10-Sep-2006

[MKC Art Bailly (ret)]

Keel Laying for National Security Cutter Waesche
Rear Adm. Gary T. Blore, program executive officer of the Integrated Deepwater System, initials the keel plate for the National Security Cutter (NSC) Waesche (WMSL 751), during the cutter's keel laying ceremony at Northrop Grumman's shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss., Sept. 11, 2006.

[BMCS T. D. Ellis]

This just in...

The NY Times is doing a feature shortly (the next week or so) on Deepwater. Wonder how that will look.

Stu,

You might want to get in touch with them so their story is straight because I don't think talking heads and company spokesmen will do anywhere near as good as you.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I appreciate your confidence in my ability to talk to the Times, but you and I both know that I'm too colorful for their readers.
They just have to remember to stay positive in all things. There are no failures, just more situations we've learned from. Even when our expectations aren't met, we still see where we need improvement to provide the quality of care that the public has come to expect from us.
We're the Coast Guard. The public wants to see us succeed. We're still riding on top of that wave............

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Stu,

If the public wants to see us succeed, they need to know that we are going to be good stewards of their tax dollars first!

As a Coastie, I know we need Deepwater!

As a Taxpayer, I'm disgusted!


Costly Fleet Update Falters
Contractors Oversee Coast Guard Project

By Renae Merle and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 8, 2006; A01



A multibillion-dollar effort to modernize the Coast Guard's fleet has suffered delays, cost increases, design flaws and, most recently, the idling of eight 123-foot patrol boats that were found to be not seaworthy after an $88 million refurbishment.

The sidelining of eight of 10 Miami-based cutters worsens a patrol-boat crisis while the Coast Guard is preparing for an exodus of Cubans that could happen when dictator Fidel Castro is no longer in power, Coast Guard leaders acknowledge.

More broadly, congressional critics warn that early mistakes in the 25-year modernization program, called Deepwater -- the Coast Guard's largest contract ever -- are hobbling the service's transformation into a front-line homeland security force.

With the failure of the retrofitting program, eight of 49 boats in the service's workhorse fleet of Island-class patrol boats are out of action. Coast Guard leaders reported last year that only 25 percent of the aging cutters were fully "mission capable," because of maintenance problems and deployment of some boats to Iraq. In reports submitted to Congress, the Coast Guard projected that the fleet would be able to log about 80 percent of its targeted 98,200 operational hours a year.

Meanwhile, a Coast Guard plan to fill the gap by accelerating development of its next-generation cutter by 10 years has stalled because of technical problems.

House members tried to cut $121 million of the $1.1 billion appropriated this year for the $24 billion Deepwater modernization program, but the attempt was defeated by the program's defenders in the Senate. Citing plans for some of the replacement cutters to be built in Mississippi, critics said some decision making was influenced by Coast Guard attempts to curry favor with Mississippi GOP senators Thad Cochran, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and Trent Lott, the incoming minority whip.

The program's failures are spelled out in a series of Government Accountability Office and Department of Homeland Security inspector general's reports and in congressional testimony, which point to the leeway given to the program's contractors, Lockheed Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp. Through their joint venture, Integrated Coast Guard Systems, the companies declined to comment, referring all questions to the Coast Guard.

But congressional critics are also raising fresh complaints of rising costs and failed ships in one of the largest national security contracts awarded after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"Deepwater is a mess. Over the last five years the Coast Guard procurement has been riddled with problems," said Rep. David W. Obey (D-Wis.), incoming chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. "Coast Guard needs to put in place a plan to fix this problem immediately."

"The big problem here is the boat doesn't work," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), outgoing chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on homeland security. "The people who manufactured these boats are going to have responsibility for their failure. . . . Someone's got to figure out who's responsible."

The Coast Guard has taken criticism of the program seriously and made significant improvements in the past few years, said Rear Adm. Gary Blore, head of the modernization program, which also includes Coast Guard aircraft. For example, the project that led to the sidelined patrol boats was approved without an independent review, which he said would not happen today.

"There is never a good time to not have enough patrol boats," Blore said. "I just regret that we haven't delivered an asset from when those management reforms were put in place."

Deepwater, awarded in 2002 and modified in 2005, lays out an ambitious plan to modernize and greatly expand the Coast Guard's aging fleet of ships, planes and helicopters, equipping the fleet with more modern technology in the process. The aim is to carry out expanded homeland security missions, including offshore patrols, port protection, and vessel boarding and escorting duties, which the Coast Guard said will consume 68,500 operational hours a year for its Island cutters. In that time, Deepwater's cost grew from $17 billion to $24 billion.

The first problems appeared in 2004, when the patrol boat Matagorda was fleeing Hurricane Ivan off the coast of Florida. The Island-class ship had just undergone an $11 million upgrade that included extending its hull from 110 feet to 123 feet. Adm. Thomas H. Collins, then commandant of the Coast Guard, called it the "leading symbol of our service's transformation."

Soon after the hurricane, the Coast Guard found a six-inch crack in the ship's deck and buckling in its hull.

The Coast Guard abandoned plans to overhaul all 49 of its 110-foot boats. In 2005, the eight ships already converted were put on restrictive duty that prohibited them from operating in seas higher than eight feet.

Last month, the Coast Guard found new structural problems beneath the main engines of some ships -- a safety risk. All eight boats were pulled out of commission. Officials said they are now figuring out how to fix them, acknowledging that it will probably require more money.

To make matters worse, the proposed replacement ships for those cutters have also run into technical problems.

The 140-foot Fast Response Cutter is meant to be speedier and tougher than its predecessor, capable of operating in higher seas and for longer periods, and resupplying less often. Responding to a Coast Guard demand to fast-track up to 58 new cutters, contractors proposed a hull design using composite materials instead of steel, which they said would weigh less and be cheaper in the long run. The Coast Guard approved the approach despite having never used such material, a Coast Guard spokesman said.

But, according to a GAO report, concern soon emerged within the service about the form and design of the hull, which was to be built at a Gulfport, Miss., shipyard owned by Northrop Grumman's Ship Systems of Pascagoula, Miss. By February 2006, those concerns had been confirmed by an independent review, and the Coast Guard suspended work on the $3 billion program after spending $25 million.

The Coast Guard is now looking for another stopgap measure, perhaps even ordering an existing ship that would be deployed by 2010, agency officials said.

House Democrats have discussed exerting more control over Deepwater projects. But Gregg said the answer is more money to accelerate Deepwater, not less. "My view is, we're going to spend what it takes to get the nation up to speed," he said.

The program's problems have been compounded by the Coast Guard's hands-off management. The primary contractors, Bethesda-based Lockheed and Northrop Grumman of Los Angeles, have been given unusual authority to run the program through Integrated Coast Guard Systems, according to several government reports. The companies make many of the important decisions, including which ships and aircraft are needed and which subcontractors will design and build them, according to GAO and inspector general reports.

In August, the Homeland Security inspector general reported that the companies had not consistently followed information-technology testing procedures and that the Coast Guard had "limited influence" over some contractor decisions.

One contracting official told the inspector general that the Coast Guard, because of personnel shortages, struggles to review documents within the 30 days the contractors allow. By the time it reviews the documents, the companies may have moved ahead with their plans, leaving the agency to accept the work or try to change it at additional cost, the report said.

The Coast Guard said it is on a "learning curve."

"We continue to make the contract more rigorous," said Mary Elder, the Coast Guard's spokeswoman for the program. "The contractor is learning lessons, as are we, about how best to interact with each other."

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Stu,

If the public wants to see us succeed, they need to know that we are going to be good stewards of their tax dollars first!

As a Coastie, I know we need Deepwater!

As a Taxpayer, I'm disgusted!


AMEN Steve!

[AMTCM John Long]

I was just in Key West talking to one of the 123 guys on Tuesday. He expressed a little concern over the uncertanity of what lays ahead.

I feel pretty confident the COMDT and MCPOCG will make sure the crews and families are taken care of as we move forward from here.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Steve, as a taxpayer you shouldn't be disgusted by deepwater. Again compare it to the loss of just one (1) fighter jet, just one (1). Re-read the fallout that the Coast Guard is getting over doing the right thing with the 123's and you begin to appreciate the COMDT's position even more. I say we are good steward's of the tax dollars. We saw a source that was using too much and still not meeting our needs, and we shut it down.

John, I feel confident too. I think the team we have in place is going to take care of all the crews and families that are going to be impacted by this. The Coast Guard has lots of resources and different venues to help our people cope with any situation that might arise from this.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I keep re-reading that article, and you know what disgusts me ? The Media. I'm not too thrilled with Congress either.
Who is the only one trying to do the right thing here ? The Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is trying to get the moderized equipment that we need to serve our public. Who are they bashing ? The Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard isn't the one who establishes the laws concerning how government contracts are distributed. The Coast Guard didn't pick who got these contracts. The system that we are required to perform in picked the company.
That article contains all the juicy things people want to read about. We have government corruption, scandal, throw in a little fear........ juicy stuff. As long as they keep out pertinent facts and compassion, that story sells in certain markets around the country.

That article has a very biased political slant. That's not a news article, it's a campaign speech. I'm disgusted by it.

[AMTCM John Long]

[QUOTE=The Coast Guard isn't the one who establishes the laws concerning how government contracts are distributed. The Coast Guard didn't pick who got these contracts. The system that we are required to perform in picked the company.
[/QUOTE]

Stu,

I don't know about the CG not picking the vendors. I can remember numerous years back at an Aviation LCPO Conference, we received a brief on a proposed new project called Deepwater. Everyone in the room had to sign disclosure forms stating we would not discuss details of the info presented. Explained to us at the time, this was because the Deepwater Contract was still in the bidding stages and the CG had not yet determined whom to award the contract to. If memory serves me correctly, there were two camps of vendors competing for the lucrative Deepwater contract. Each camp was made up of numerous defense contractors who offered their services for the different projects the CG was requesting.

I have no inside knowledge of the final contract decision making. I would speculate the decision on which "camp" to choose was made based on the whole package and not individual projects. I don't believe we picked what contractors made up the "camps". The lead contractors did. We couldn't pick and choose individual vendors, we choose the whole camp.

John

[BMCS John Brady - Ret.]

Stu,

I agree with most of your post. However on a larger scale isn't congress our boss (yes I know the President is CinC) and they are holding "us" accountable for the money they allocated "us" (via the US taxpayer). I thought you were big on accountability on all levels?


Did you know that "we" went to industry and told them to study "us" then tell "us" what platforms "we" need to do our jobs.... Kind of backwards don't you think??? The CG is trying to do the right thing for a mistake "we" made....

Finally I have very little use for most media (print is the most biased) but they sometimes hold people accountable by the nature of the work they do.

JB

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Stu,

As a taxpayer, I'm disgusted ANYTIME, the government (any agency) wastes my money.

[BMCS T. D. Ellis]

Compared to other government/defense procurement programs, and I have no data to back this up, Deepwater seems about average. Remember the Bradley Fighting Vehicle? Of course Deepwater is the flavor of month but I doubt there will be a movie made about it like the Bradley.

On the other hand, we have been told that this "war" is as important, maybe even more important, than World War II. Yes there was waste then, but we won it under four years. I think the United States is firmly committed to the troops, but as far as winning this war, nobody (mostly Congress) wants to step up and make the American People sacrifice the money, time and people required for victory.

Bottom line, we are at war and cannot afford stopgaps. We must endeavor to get the best equipment to our troops no mattter what the cost. We should follow the Powell Doctrine and commit, completely and unequivocally to victory, or just throw in the towel and accept the inevitable.

Biased? I'd rather live in a country where we have to put up with a biased media than be spoonfed what the government wants us to hear. I believe EVERYONE who posts on this board is smart enough to extract the pearls of wisdom from the mud of obfuscation and form their own opinions.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

This just in...

The NY Times is doing a feature shortly (the next week or so) on Deepwater. Wonder how that will look.

The story was in today's paper. Quoting from the article "And the first completed new ship - a $564 million behemoth christened last month - has structural weaknesses that some Coast Guard engineers believe may threaten its safety and limit its life span, unless costly repairs are made."

[BMCS T. D. Ellis]

Ray, any chance you could post the story or link it?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, I am big on accountability. I also know and understand that we answer to Congress. But Congress needs to hold themselves accountable as well. And the people who were quoted aren't standing up, they're pointing fingers.

Let's examine the article together shall we.......

The sidelining of eight of 10 Miami-based cutters worsens a patrol-boat crisis while the Coast Guard is preparing for an exodus of Cubans that could happen when dictator Fidel Castro is no longer in power, Coast Guard leaders acknowledge. Which Coast Guard leaders acknowledged this ?

More broadly, congressional critics warn that early mistakes in the 25-year modernization program, called Deepwater -- the Coast Guard's largest contract ever -- are hobbling the service's transformation into a front-line homeland security force.
Which critcs, and more importantly, aren't we already a front line homeland security force ?

Citing plans for some of the replacement cutters to be built in Mississippi, critics said some decision making was influenced by Coast Guard attempts to curry favor with Mississippi GOP senators Thad Cochran, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and Trent Lott, the incoming minority whip. Oh, critics said it. That makes it alright then. As long as critics say it, we don't need to provide any evidence that the Coast Guard wants them built in Mississippi. How exactly is the Coast Guard curring favor....... never mind, if the critic say that we are, then we must be.

"Deepwater is a mess. Over the last five years the Coast Guard procurement has been riddled with problems," said Rep. David W. Obey (D-Wis.), incoming chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. "Coast Guard needs to put in place a plan to fix this problem immediately."
"The big problem here is the boat doesn't work," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), outgoing chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on homeland security. "The people who manufactured these boats are going to have responsibility for their failure. . . . Someone's got to figure out who's responsible." Incoming Dems, outgoing Reps, who needs to fix it, somebody else, who needs to find who's responsible, somebody else.

Officials said they are now figuring out how to fix them, acknowledging that it will probably require more money.
The Coast Guard approved the approach despite having never used such material, a Coast Guard spokesman said. Both of these sound truely sinister. If we fix something....... it will probably cost more money. WOW, someone went out on a limb with that statement. And approving the use of never before used materials. WOW, I'm sure that's never been done before either. Let's just use the same stuff the Mayflower was made out of.

which was to be built at a Gulfport, Miss., shipyard owned by Northrop Grumman's Ship Systems of Pascagoula, Miss. There it is again.... Mississippi...... they mentioned it twice, because that's where evil lurks.

House Democrats have discussed exerting more control over Deepwater projects. But Gregg said the answer is more money to accelerate Deepwater, not less. "My view is, we're going to spend what it takes to get the nation up to speed," he said. The Dems have discussed things, while the Reps want to keep spending......

The program's problems have been compounded by the Coast Guard's hands-off management. The primary contractors, Bethesda-based Lockheed and Northrop Grumman of Los Angeles, have been given unusual authority to run the program through Integrated Coast Guard Systems, according to several government reports. The companies make many of the important decisions, including which ships and aircraft are needed and which subcontractors will design and build them, according to GAO and inspector general reports. Hands-off management ? again with the evidence. Are the companies really deciding which ships and aircraft to built, or are they deciding in which order to build them ? Aren't they required to build what's in the contract? And though I'm not a general contractor myself, don't they usually decide which subcontractors to go with ? And which subcontractors will do which jobs ?

].....that the Coast Guard had "limited influence" over some contractor decisions[/COLOR].I wonder why that was...... maybe because it was a performance based contract and we had to wait to see how it performed first........

One contracting official told the inspector general that the Coast Guard, because of personnel shortages, struggles to review documents within the 30 days the contractors allow. By the time it reviews the documents, the companies may have moved ahead with their plans, leaving the agency to accept the work or try to change it at additional cost, the report said. Quoting one unconfirmed source...... that's sound journalism........

That whole article had nothing to do with accountability, it was all about blame.

John, "we" are trying to correct mistakes the "we" made. But some of the "we" that are doing it, weren't the "we" that made the mistakes in the first place. "We"'re just taking the heat for it.

John, the Coast Guard awards the contract to the company that best meets the requirements. Having not read what you signed, I can only assume that you weren't allowed to let one contractor know what the others were doing. In all contract negotiations I've been involved with, we give the same information to all parties. Everything is above board. The information that they give us isn't give out to other bidders. That could skew other bids.

Steve, I wouldn't watch the news if I were you. Anything I don't personally agree with becomes a waste of tax payer dollars in my eyes.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Ray, any chance you could post the story or link it?

I found the link. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us/09ship.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fP eople%2fL%2fLipton%2c%20Eric