There is growing realization in Congress that something needs to be done to provide additional presence in the American Arctic. Unfortunately this realization coincides with strong pressure to cut spending and the need to begin replacing the entire Medium Endurance Cutter (WMEC) fleet with the Offshore Patrol Cutters (OPC).
The Navy Times reports (“CG must balance cuts with Arctic Mission”) while there is increasing presure to bring a second icebreaker on line, “The Senate’s Coast Guard authorization bill, S 1665, requires the service to operate at least two heavy polar icebreakers at any one times..” and the Coast Guard recognizes a need for more capability, ” The Coast Guard estimates it will need at least three heavy and three medium icebreakers to meet minimum mission requirements as the polar ice cap melts.” There is also a belief that, “…we also have to respond to demand from the administration and the public to cut spending.”
Apparently in response to budget uncertainties, and in an effort to bolster the Coast Guard’s support, on Oct 12 the Coast Guard briefed the media on recapitalization efforts. MarineLink.com reports, “The briefing…revealed little in terms of new developments but at the same time, underscored the increasing concerns amongst Coast Guard senior leaders that budget woes may soon force a scaling back of one or more aspects of their ambitious, multi-billion dollar recapitalization plans.”
“He (Adm. Papp) conceded that this might involve reducing operational capabilities of these new hulls if the funding wasn’t there…the availability of funding may eventually force DHS to sacrifice requirements by changing the fleet mix, sacrificing operational capabilities, or both.”
Reporting on apparently the same meeting fiercehomelandsecurity.com said, “The Coast Guard is looking for ways to reduce the cost of its Offshore Patrol Cutter procurement, even considering the possibility of trading OPCs for increased capability elsewhere, Coast Guard officials said during an Oct. 12 press availability.”
“The service already has taken steps to contain OPC cost, Atkins said (Rear Adm. Vincent Atkins, assistant commandant for capability). Apart from the hull specification, ‘everything else is on the table,’ he said.”
“For example, OPCs will not have a stern ramp for launching small boats. ‘It would have added a lot of length to the ship that would otherwise be used for something else and make it larger and more expensive,’ Atkins said.”
Adm. Papp estimates that the Coast Guard actually needs $2.5B annually in Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements funding, but it appears the FY 2012 appropriations will be about $1.4B.
Related:
- Budget Cut/Stimulus Implications for the Coast Guard
- Deepwater Program, Unachievable–GAO, Part One
- Deepwater Program, Unachievable–GAO, Part Two
- FY2012 AC&I Budget Request for Vessels
- What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate
- Fleet Mix, Where are the Trade-offs?
- Shipbuilding, Dealing with Reality
- Budget Realities Setting-In
- FY2012 AC&I Budget Request for Vessels
- Rethinking the New Cutter Programs
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
More here: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/November/Pages/CoastGuardCommandantGirdsServiceForPossibleBudgetCuts.aspx
Four Gulf Coast ship yards still interested in the OPC provide comments. BAE says they are no longer in the running: http://blog.al.com/press-register-business/2011/10/is_the_coast_clear_several_ala.html
It’s great that the authorization bill says we need to be able to operate two heavy icebreakers at any one time. Unfortunately, the money to make this happen comes from the appropriations bill, and it has been a rare occurence of late that the two bills actually agree on a) what we are supposed to be doing, and b) how much it really costs to do it.