Good to be seeing some public discussion of the Coast Guard’s need for new cutters.
This article appearing in the San Francisco Examiner was written by James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation. (I think I saw virtually the same article appeared in other newspapers as well.)
The Naval Institute has published a good article explaining the need for recapitalization of the Cutter Fleet. It is available on line here. The article was writen by Captain Fears. Here is his bio from the article:
“Captain Fears is the U.S. Coast Guard’s chief of law enforcement. He has more than a decade of sea service in seven ships around the world, and he served as commanding officer in two of them. He is also the chairman of the U.S. Naval Institute Editorial Board.”
He does an excellent job of emphasizing the expansiveness of the areas to be patrolled.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
Hello Chuck Hill,
you may find this interesting:
http://www.naval.com.br/blog/2011/08/03/brp-gregorio-del-pilar-ex-uscgc-hamilton/
Grandlogistics.
Thanks, I see the CIWS has been removed. That is probably unfortunate from the Philippine point of view.
The Excess Defense Articles (EDA) and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programs are complicated. The CG learned much during the decommissionng and transfwer of HAMILTON and CHASE.
GL, Thanks for the article. She looks more like that “white needle of death” without the stripe. The highlighted hull number gives her a stately look.
The article mentions, “Part of the impetus to build these “Treasury Class” cutters (named after former secretaries of the treasury) was the emergence of trans-ocean air travel.”
I would say the impetus fell into two categories. The first was what would be known today as re-capitalization. The cutter fleet previous was worn out from the hard years of Prohibition service and many were the the difficult and expensive to maintain “four stackers”. The second was the building provided jobs. Over half of the funding for the 327s came from the Depression Era version of stimulus funds. Imagine getting half of the funding today to build ten new cutters at once.
Remember too, the Lake Class cutters were also coming on line. In addition, the Coast Guard began its modern aviation arm (oversee by a black shoe captain).
It is a bit too simplistic to give the “impetus” to the fledgling trans-oceanic air passenger service. The 327s saw far more service escorting merchant ships in the pre-war years.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the emergence of trans-oceanic air passenger service provided the rationale for the growth compared to the Lake Class.
Looks like she lost both 25mm chain guns as well. All that’s left is the 76mm.
Mr. Carafano explicitly embraces the “naval” nature of the major cutter fleet. I think it’s a good argument. Making the case that high-endurance cutters can add capacity to the Navy in times of war is a good way to get these suckers built!
“Making the case that high-endurance cutters can add capacity to the Navy in times of war is a good way to get these suckers built!’
That has been pretty much the argument since the mid-1890s. The RCS/Coast Guard was the only true naval reserve and could supplement the “ocean navy”.
The only problem with the “Coast Guard supplements the Navy” approach is that I don’t recall the Navy ever testifying or otherwise actively lobbying Congress for shipbuilding money for the Coast Guard. Maybe they have, but I haven’t seen it.
Yes, when needed, the Navy calls upon the Coast Guard to provide supporting assets. But Coast Guard shipbuilding money is found in the Homeland Security portion of the budget, not the Defense budget. I suspect that over the next decade, when shipbuilding money is even more tight, that you’ll see the Navy support Coast Guard shipbuilding requests when it gets real cold somewhere.
Navy did fund sixteen 110s for us in the late 1980s with the understanding they could be written into Naval Component Commander’s OPLANs and CONPLANS. More recently, HEALY was funded by NAVSEA as well.
As you mention, problem with the Navy lobbying for us is it makes no difference as their oversight committee is different than ours. Only real way it would have any impact or fly with the HASC/SASC would be to show the need for a CG cutter in one if their component commanders planning documents that cannot be fullfilled by one of their own ships.
I stand corrected – you are right about the 110’s. I remember being amazed that the Navy actually funded them.
I recall that NAVSEA handled the design and construction of HEALY – I didn’t realize they funded it as well. I thought NSF paid for part of it.
Trivia question for our audience – what single WPB was paid for by another agency?
To clarify, funding was from NSF, but Big Navy chipped in to NSF to help them along. Navy has more interest in NSF projects and research than many know. Funny when you have some of these crunchy, pseudo-anti military types onboard. Most of them have some silly hostility toward the Navy, but don’t seem to mind taking their money to further their research projects which help the Navy’s missions.
Well, there was the Naval Militia, that functioned like a navy version of the National Guard. They did have a few ships, but I don’t know if they were used for anything other than training. Certainly the CG was more capable.
Incidentally, a handful of states still have naval militias and down in Texas a few people in their “Maritime Regiment” are getting qualified to operate on USCG small boats.
ex-HAMILTON departed HI, She looked good even without the stripe. NY still has a Naval Militia. It is ceremonial at best. The CG major cutter fleet provides a tremendous Fleet in Being but that won’t pay the bills. While I don’t know the name of the single WPB funded by another agency, there were several 87s funded specifically for the Navy MFPUs, But DOD isn’t an agency.
The WPB in question was a “Point” class cutter.
The Navy built one. I believe it is, or was, a Sea Scout vessel. I also remember reading of one for NOAA.
I saw all three of the WPBs I served go to the agency of the South Vietnamese and then to the North Vietnamese.
They may have, but not the one I had in mind. Your four letters are close, though.
With regards to the Navy funding of CG cutters, it was not 16 that were funded by them, it was 33. The first 16 (A class) were procured using CG funds. The second contract which resulted in 21 B class and 12 C C Class were funded by the Navy with oversight from PMS 300. I was the KO on that program for over 5 years and my Fitness reports were even written by PMS 300
Of the 87s four have been purchased with Navy Funds with the mission to escort Subs in and out of Savanah (2 each) and 2 each in Puget Sound. There have also been 4 each 87s sold under two separate FMS cases, 2 have gone to Malta and are doing a great job there. The other two are in Yemen and I have no information on them.
I seem to recall reading the congressional hearings on the Coast Guard’s replacement of the 26-82s sent to Vietnam. Those would have been C Class . I’d have to read them again. I do not recall the Navy ponying up for the replacement in them. It is not in the original (1965) agreement between Treasury and the Navy Department. Perhaps something came up later when they found out that Vietnam wasn’t going to be as short a mission as they thought.
Question for Former KO
With your professional background, perhaps you may be familiar with this.
I have seen photos of two 270′ Famous class type cutters in Taiwanese naval service. I know the former Derecktor shipyard in Rhode Island didn’t construct them. My question is this: did the USCG allow them to be built under some National Defense program ie “under license”? Or did they just copy them? Your thoughts…
Kilroywashere,
First this is the second response I have drafted this morning. The first one, I inadvertently deleted when I closed without submitting. But then I am correctly accused of using my computer for indirect lighting in my office.
The 270 design was developed by the CG Engineering staff, with contract drawings and specifications provided as part of the soliciation. The drawings were made available to all interested bidders so it is very possible that the “copy” is an appropriate term. However for those that are interested there is, like Paul Harvey would say, “page 2, the rest of the story.”
In the mid 70’s the prefered acquistion strategy was “formal advertising” as opposed to the current “negotiated” strategy. Also keep in mind that International Trade and Arms Regualations” were not a consideration. Finally the current prohibition about foreign shipyards as Prime contractors did not exist for the CG as it did for the Navy. The CG put out the solication and at least one foreign yard competed, Oy Wartsilla Ab of Helsinki Finland. Under the rules at the time the award would be to the lowest, responsive, responsible, bidder. At the prescirbed date and time the bids from all the bidders were publically opened and read to all interested parties, including any potential contactors in a conference room at Headquarters, (then located in the Nasif Building). The apparent low bidder for the first 270 contact was Oy Wartsilla Ab. That solicataion was for the first 4 270s.
The RFQ included the required Buy American clause but the clause did not prevent foreign shipyards from competeing. It only required that an evaluation factor of 6 or 12% be added to the bid price of the non US bid. Since the lowest U S bidder was Tacoma Boat, a small business, the 12% factor was added to Wartsilla’s price but they were still the lowest. The CG was going to have the 270s built in Finland. To put the time line in place, DOT has just been formed and we had moved to that beloved agency. The letters from citizens and Congress started coming in about the absurdity of building the 270s in Finland, “a puppet state of Russia.” (Chuck, you will glad to know that most refeered to them as the STATE OF THE ART Man of War.” Almost all of the letters provided quotes that were ultimately traced back to a John Birch Soceity newsletter with minor changes. (I remember several that had an PS that objected to seat belts in cars as well.)
Shortly after the bid opening Wartsilla claimed that they had made a mistake in their bid concerning the design and development of COMDAC. They asked to revise (read as raise) their bid to account for the mistake but they would still be the low bidder. Revisions to a bid are allowed but only if the intended bid is obvious from the “four corners of the bid document.” These would be items like an adding mistake or a screw of of the units of measure. Again it had to be obvious for the bid document and not the bidders backup.
The KO, A J Beard, determined that they could not change their bid and then went even further to say that since they admitted the mistake and it was so grevous, he had to find them “non responsible” and threw them out. It is rumored that the collective “sigh of relief” from the acquistion staff, CG Congressional Liason Office and the Department was so large that it moved the Washington Monumet a quarter of an inch.
The next low bidder was Tacoma Boat who at the time was building the WTGBs (Bay Class).
So as most of you know the first 4 270s were built by Tacoma Boat and the last nine were built by R E Director. I think it is very important here to understand that the CG acquistion staff, then a division in the office of Finance. did everything correctly and in accordance with the regulations at the time. No responsible official ever questioned that.
What Wartsilla did not recongize was how dearly we held our coporate pardigm “There is security in obscurity”
Please overlook any mis-spellings. As Mark Twain once said, “I have little respect for a man that can only think of one way to spell a word.”
Maybe at some point I will follow up with the story on the second award (R E Director) as that has some unusual attributes as well.
“To put the time line in place, DOT has just been formed and we had moved to that beloved agency.”
The Department of Transportation was established by an act of Congress on October 15, 1966. The Department’s first official day of operation was April 1, 1967. Given that the Bear’s keel was laid down in 1979, I don’t think it is accurate to say that DOT “had just been formed,” unless it took 12 years to design the Bear. 😉
Anonymouse
You are right, my bad.
Great reply, and told with a bit o humor too!! Love to hear the Derecktor shipyard story, I recall reading about the conflict between Mr. Derecktor and Tacoma Boat concernibg the awarding of the “B” class.
Thanks for the “rest of the story”.
Killroy, presume the ship in the right side of this picture is one of those you were talking about:
Does look very similar, except that the boat davit is on the flight deck?
Chuck
I have the same photo and another photo of the same cutter with a starboard bow view. The vessels are named “HO HSING” CG 101 and the second “WEI HSING” CG 102. I’m so computer illiterate I don’t know how to post the photo on this site. The Taiwanese 270’s carry and deploy these large patrol boats in service rather than utilize helicopters. Perhaps when our 270’s are declared surplus they might find a home in Taiwan… I recall when our new cutter was in Derecktor shipyard a number of foreign naval officers(from the Naval War College in Newport) were given a tour of our ship. The idea was to drum up some business for the shipyard but apparently the 270′ design wasn’t a big hit with the visitors. And yet there are two examples patrolling the waters off Taiwan.