Earlier we discussed the House sub-committee hearings on the Coast Guard’s Capital Investment Plan (CIP). The US Naval Institute has published the plan, you can see it here. It is very short, only six pages, and virtually all the useful information is on the last page.
What I found bewildering is that the Coast Guard does not have any unfunded priorities. The report is supposed to include unfunded priorities, after all the long title is “Capital Investment Plan and Unfunded Priority List.”
“This report responds to the language set forth inCoast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012(Pub. L. 112-213) as per the following:SEC. 213 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN AND ANNUAL LIST OF PROJECTS……….(b) UNFUNDED PRIORITY DEFINED.—In this section, the term unfunded priority’ means a program or mission requirement that— (1) has not been selected for funding in the applicable proposed budget;(2) is necessary to fulfill a requirement associated with an operational need; and (3) the Commandant would have recommended for inclusion in the applicable proposed budget had additional resources been available or had the requirement emerged before the budget was submitted.”
–
If you look at the “Fleet Mix Study” it is clear that both the Coast Guard and the DHS agree that in order to accomplish its mandated missions, the Coast Guard has a significant shortfall in assets and would still have a shortfall even if the “Program of Record” (POR) were complete today.
–
Looking at the table below which was included in the Fleet Mix Study, that concluded the assets under FMA-4 would be required to complete all mandated missions, we can see that the POR is short one NSC, 32 OPCs, 33 OPCs, 22 C-130s, 31 HC-144s, 62 H-60s, 121 H-65s, 22 land based UAS, and 19 Cutter based UAS.
–
Table ES-8 Alternative Fleet Mix Asset Quantities
—————-–POR FMA-1 FMA-2 FMA-3 FMA-4
NSC 8 9 9 9 9
OPC 25 32 43 50 57
FRC 58 63 75 80 91
HC-130 22 32 35 44 44
HC-144A 36 37 38 40 65
H-60 42 80 86 99 106
H-65 102 140 159 188 223
UAS-LB 4 19 21 21 22
UAS-CB42 15 19 19 19
—————-–POR FMA-1 FMA-2 FMA-3 FMA-4
NSC 8 9 9 9 9
OPC 25 32 43 50 57
FRC 58 63 75 80 91
HC-130 22 32 35 44 44
HC-144A 36 37 38 40 65
H-60 42 80 86 99 106
H-65 102 140 159 188 223
UAS-LB
UAS-CB
–
Where are these unfunded priorities? It is one thing to say, “This is what we think we need, but we understand we cannot afford it right now.” It is another thing entirely to preemptively surrender and not even tell Congress what you need when they have asked.
–
And, at a subcommittee hearing entitled “Examining Cutter, Aircraft, and Communications Needs,” why was there no mention of the Fleet Mix Study except in passing by the Congress’s own researcher?
–
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for linking back to the post that references my FierceHomelandSecurity story. You know, we don’t get any revenue out of web traffic made to .pdfs – so if you’d like to download & host the Fleet Mix study directly on your website, that’s no problem. I’m saying so partially to assure that the study has a safe online location, since there might be changes coming to FHS that I’m not fully in control of.
Best, Dave
Thanks, Dave, as you know http://www.fiercehomelandsecurity.com/ is one of my daily reads.
More of the loyal dog wagging it’s tail hoping for a pat on the head. Can you do more with less? Yep! Can’t wait! Pleeeease pet my head!!
I wonder how many Obama phones it would take to pay for an NSC?
Pingback: Changes Ahead, Acquisition, Organization? and Again, Where is the Damn Unfunded Priority List? | Chuck Hill's CG Blog
Pingback: Administration Considers Cancelling NSC#9 | Chuck Hill's CG Blog