We have already discussed the fact that the House version of the CG reauthorization bill (H.R. 2838) would require the decommissioning of the Polar Star in only three years, even after a renovation intended to extend its service life as much as ten years.

It is not law yet. It still has to be reconciled with the Senate version and be signed by the President, but the House version also has some interesting wording that may impact the National Security Cutter (NSC) and Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) programs.

“Sec. 569a. National security cutters”(a) Sixth National Security Cutter- The Commandant may not begin production of a sixth national security cutter on any date before which the Commandant–

• “(1) has acquired a sufficient number of Long Range Interceptor II and Cutter Boat Over the Horizon IV small boats for each of the first three national security cutters and has submitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a plan to provide such boats upon the date of delivery of each subsequent national security cutter;
• “(2) has achieved the goal of 225 days away from homeport for each of the first two national security cutters; and
• “(3) has submitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a program execution plan detailing increased aerial coverage to support national security cutter operations.”

(b) Seventh National Security Cutter- The Commandant may not begin production of a seventh national security cutter on any date before which the Commandant has selected an offshore patrol cutter that meets at least the minimum operational requirements set out in the Operational Requirements Document approved by the department in which the Coast Guard is operating on October 20, 2010.”

NSC #6 should be funded in FY 2013 and NSC #7 in FY2014. To me, these requirements suggest:

• That the committee that wrote the bill wants some proof of the claims that were used by Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS), and later by the Coast Guard, to justify the NSC and explain how eight ships could replace 12 WHEC 378s. They want to know if the crew rotation concept (four crews for three ships) is going to work. And they want another look at the plan to use UAVs.
• That the committee is considering truncating the NSC program at six ships (or perhaps even five ships) and beginning OPC construction instead of completing all eight NSCs. Certainly in view of the draconian cuts expected in the Federal budget the program of record cannot be taken for granted.

It goes on to require several reports including (not a complete list):

• A budget constrained “Fleet Mix” study.
• A bi-annual “Major Acquisition Programs Implementation Report” (Sec. 569b)
• An assessment of the need for additional Coast Guard prevention and response capability in the high latitude regions. (Sec. 308)

It even attempts (Sec. 310) to extort compliance by forbidding (with some exceptions) the use of Coast Guard aircraft by the Secretary of the CG’s parent department or the Commandant “…if the Secretary has not provided the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate all of the following:

“(1) A cost-constrained Fleet Mix Analysis.

“(2) The study of Coast Guard current and planned cutters conducted by the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation of the Department of Homeland Security at the request of the Office of Management and Budget.”

The Congress has been waiting for the Fleet-Mix study for a long time. It sounds like the House committee that wrote the bill is saying that they are not happy that the CG has not done the math (the operations research) to back up the budget requests. I suspect there is an O-3/4 in HQ ready to do, or perhaps even has done, this study, but it is being held up by an O-6/7 either because they can’t understand it or because they don’t like the conclusions. This needs to get done. It is an opportunity for the Coast Guard to make its case and show the benefit as well as the cost of its programs.