BoatNerd.Com Discussion Boards

[quote="paulbeesley"]There was also mention in the article that some legislators think moving the CG from DHS to Pentagon would be a productive move. After all, CG personnel and equipment take part in military actions around the world and a move such as this would give CG access to better funding.

The sad part of this story is that the USA now has only one heavy icebreaker and one lighter icebreaker/research ship. (The Mac is a nice ship but not Polar capable). The former is well past its planned life and relies on parts from its mothballed sister ship to keep going. As the USCG works in both polar regions and icebreakers take a tremendous amount of maintenance it is strange that this funding is being withdrawn.

As the article points out, the Russians now have 40 major icebreakers and are building a bunch more; even the Chinese (with no coastline in the Arctic) have two polar icebreakers. Canada has many more icebreakers than the US, although they are also getting long-in-the-tooth and funding for new ones is hard to come by. So does Finland!

While the USCG is mainly involved in SAR and drug/people interdiction it is a shame that those in power (for several administrations) can't seem to understand that if you are an Arctic country (Alaska) then you need the means to patrol and protect.[/quote]

Why does it take a Canadian to sum things up so well? Nice post, Paul.

Prior to being with the Department of Homeland Security, the USCG was with the Department of Transportation. It wasn't in a position then and isn't now to get funding like the other branches of U.S. military who are part of the Department of Defense. That is why the low number of arctic vessels compared to our neighbors to the North and other countries.

There was also mention in the article that some legislators think moving the CG from DHS to Pentagon would be a productive move. After all, CG personnel and equipment take part in military actions around the world and a move such as this would give CG access to better funding.

The sad part of this story is that the USA now has only one heavy icebreaker and one lighter icebreaker/research ship. (The Mac is a nice ship but not Polar capable). The former is well past its planned life and relies on parts from its mothballed sister ship to keep going. As the USCG works in both polar regions and icebreakers take a tremendous amount of maintenance it is strange that this funding is being withdrawn.

As the article points out, the Russians now have 40 major icebreakers and are building a bunch more; even the Chinese (with no coastline in the Arctic) have two polar icebreakers. Canada has many more icebreakers than the US, although they are also getting long-in-the-tooth and funding for new ones is hard to come by. So does Finland!

While the USCG is mainly involved in SAR and drug/people interdiction it is a shame that those in power (for several administrations) can't seem to understand that if you are an Arctic country (Alaska) then you need the means to patrol and protect.

Found this in the latest issue of stars and stripes,

The Senate tentatively approved $750 million in February to build the new heavy icebreaker.

But Homeland Security stripped the funding from its most recent budget proposal, allocating it instead to the proposed border wall. The move prompted the letter from lawmakers, who said the agency sought to cut Coast Guard funding “while wasting a staggering $4.9 billion on a border wall.”

Looks like funding for a new lock is also 'out of the question'.