The US Naval Institute has published an online copy of the DOD’s unfunded priority list. The Navy’s list runs pages 9-13 of the 49 page document reproduced there.
Which got me to thinking, where is the Coast Guard’s unfunded priority list? Do we have one? If not, shouldn’t we? The FY2015 budget proposal includes only two Fast Response Cutters. First on the list, four more. The additional 14 C-27Js still leave us four Maritime Patrol Aircraft short of the program of record. Four more C-144s (or C-27s) please. There is a documented requirement for three heavy and three medium icebreakers. Lets fix the Polar Sea. To do all its statutory missions, the Coast Guard Fleet Mix Study indicated we need nine National Security Cutters not eight and not 25 Offshore Patrol Cutters but 57. We are not ready to order the OPCs yet, but a ninth NSC is something we could use right now. Plus the Coast Guard needs replacements or rebuilds for the inland fleet of tenders and the 65 foot icebreaking tugs. Incidentally the Fleet Mix Study says the Coast Guard need 65 Maritime Patrol Aircraft (listed as C-144s in the study) not the 36 in the program of record or the 32 in the works currently.
The Commandant has been saying the Coast Guard needs $2.5B a year in AC&I. Why not tell Congress how we would spend it. If I remember correctly, Congress has in fact asked for this. The Coast Guard would be remiss in not providing it.
Aren’t the proper hull designations WMSL, WMSM, and WOPC not NSC, OPC, and FRC?
I meant WPC not WOPC
Yes WMSL, WMSM, and WPC are the Official designations. WPC is a standard designation with a long history. WMSL and WMSM have no history at all, and in fact the designations are inconsistent with the standard designation system. See: https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2013/08/19/ship-type-designations/
Good article and point, Chuck. The Navy uses this as a way to get extra publicity and attention from Congress for what “should” be as opposed to what is being paid for. It also implicitly highlights where capability shortfalls can/will happen. Although I’m not a fan of this, as it can be too excuse-ridden, but when accusations of neglect or lack of capabilities are made after an incident, CG leadership can point to an organized document showing the request and that it was not prioritized.
I also think, like the Navy we need a 30 year ship building plan.
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