http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs...758237019/1001

Scrapped vessels haunt Coast Guard

May 6, 2008


By Jen Haberkorn - Eight ships that were supposed to be the
government's latest, best weapon for stopping terrorists, illegal
immigrants and smugglers now float unused in a U.S. Coast Guard
shipyard in Baltimore, the symbol of a nearly $100 million taxpayer
debacle.

Instead of patrolling, the ships were deemed unfit for the high seas
after just a couple of months of use and eventually will be dismantled
without ever fulfilling their promise.

The Coast Guard hopes to finally put the problems with its much
maligned "Deepwater" program behind it, taking ownership this month of
a brand new 418-foot national security cutter that was built from
scratch after contractors bungled the modernization of the earlier
eight ships.

Commissioning of the USCGC Bertholf will be the next major step in a
25-year, $24 billion project to extend the Coast Guard's reach further
than ever before beyond U.S. shores. Taxpayers, however, won't see
much benefit until the Bertholf is tested and cleared for duty over
the next couple of years.

Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS), the contracting group that is
finishing testing of the $641 million Bertholf, insists the ship is
performing well in sea trials and should be free of the problems that
doomed the earlier vessels.

The Bertholf also has received high marks from the U.S. Navy Board of
Inspection and Survey. The board described the ship — the flagship of
the first new class of cutters in 25 years — as "a unique and very
capable platform with great potential for future service" in the Coast
Guard.

Inspectors found fewer problems with the Bertholf than is typical with
a first-of-class ship, according to ICGS, which is made up of Lockheed
Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp.

Spokeswoman Megan Mitchell noted that the new cutter has a totally
different design from the eight 123-foot cutters that developed cracks
after their upgrades and are now tied up at the Coast Guard's
Baltimore yard waiting to be dismantled.

The troubled Deepwater program began in the 1990s, when the Coast
Guard sought a modernization project for its aging fleet of ships to
improve its capacity to operate more than 50 miles offshore.

The idea was to issue one contract to manage the entire replacement
over a 25-year period, rather than replacing the fleet one product at
a time.

ICGS was awarded the contract, which eventually will include 91 ships,
124 boats, 195 aircraft, management equipment and logistics.

The first major Deepwater project encountered problems after ICGS
spent nearly $100 million to attach 13-foot ramps to the backs of 110-
foot cutters to allow small boats to launch into the water quickly to
chase suspicious watercraft.

ICGS learned that cracks developed in the hull when the USCGC
Matagorda was fleeing Hurricane Ivan off the coast of Florida in 2004.
When the Coast Guard decommissioned the vessels in November 2006,
Commandant Adm. Thad Allen said the problems were too numerous to
repair.

Adm. Allen said the ships were pulled out of service "to ensure the
continued safety of our crews as we assess additional structural
damage recently discovered aboard this class of cutter." He said the
contractor knowingly installed equipment that failed to meet specific
environmental requirements outlined in the costly Deepwater contract.

The Coast Guard cited cracking on the deck, deformation of the hull
and problems with shaft alignment, and abandoned plans to overhaul all
49 of its 110-foot cutters. In 2005, the eight ships already converted
were prohibited from operating in seas deeper than eight feet.

The ships then were moved out of the way in the Baltimore yard.

In several reports, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
criticized oversight of the construction process and said the Coast
Guard had to maintain more decision-making authority. In March 2004,
the GAO said the Coast Guard's assessment of ICGS's performance
"lacked rigor."

Adm. Allen told a Senate committee last year that the failure of the
123s was unacceptable and that he established a group to determine
responsibility.

The ICGS said it is investigating the failures. Ms. Mitchell declined
to talk about specifics, including the Coast Guard's role in the ICGS
investigation.

The Coast Guard requested reimbursement from the ICGS last May and
confirmed last week that it is working with "other federal agencies
investigating the contractor's failure to deliver 123-foot cutters
meeting the requirements," a spokeswoman said.

The Justice Department declined to say whether it is investigating.

Congress also is trying to resolve the issue. Last week, the House
overwhelmingly passed the Coast Guard's reauthorization bill.
Supporters say it contains safeguards to prevent the mismanagement and
lack of oversight that led to the problems with the 123s. The measure
would prohibit the Coast Guard from naming a contractor the "lead
systems integrator," a chief decision-making role.

President Bush has threatened to veto the bill because of a provision
requiring the Coast Guard to enforce security around liquefied natural
gas terminals. The Senate is expected to take up its version after the
Memorial Day recess.

"The Coast Guard Authorization Act gets the Deepwater program back on
course," said Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman
of the House Committee on Homeland Security. "As someone who cares
about the Coast Guard, it has been disturbing to see the mismanagement
of this program."

It likely will take years to determine the root of the problem, said
one congressional aide, because both sides are trying to "muddy the
waters" of information.

"It's going to be very hard to find a definitive answer on what
happened with the 123s," the aide said, adding that there are no signs
the new cutter has the same problem as the 123s.

Can't they just fix the cracks? Or strengthen the ships in certain
spots with more metal?

"Steve Dufour" wrote in message
...
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs...758237019/1001

Scrapped vessels haunt Coast Guard

May 6, 2008

[ SNIP ]
The Coast Guard cited cracking on the deck, deformation of the hull
and problems with shaft alignment, and abandoned plans to overhaul all
49 of its 110-foot cutters. In 2005, the eight ships already converted
were prohibited from operating in seas deeper than eight feet.
[ SNIP ]

This is a pretty serious restriction. :-) Seeing as how the USCG says the
draft of these boats is 7 feet....

AHS

In article 23e0775b-b4cc-46ae-8c61-e7813a76e8c3
@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com, says...
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs...758237019/1001

Scrapped vessels haunt Coast Guard

May 6, 2008


By Jen Haberkorn - Eight ships that were supposed to be the
government's latest, best weapon for stopping terrorists, illegal
immigrants and smugglers now float unused in a U.S. Coast Guard
shipyard in Baltimore, the symbol of a nearly $100 million taxpayer
debacle.

Instead of patrolling, the ships were deemed unfit for the high seas
after just a couple of months of use and eventually will be dismantled
without ever fulfilling their promise.

"unfit for the high seas" or "unfit for high seas"??? There's
a big difference there.

The Coast Guard hopes to finally put the problems with its much
maligned "Deepwater" program behind it, taking ownership this month of
a brand new 418-foot national security cutter that was built from
scratch after contractors bungled the modernization of the earlier
eight ships.

Commissioning of the USCGC Bertholf will be the next major step in a
25-year, $24 billion project to extend the Coast Guard's reach further
than ever before beyond U.S. shores. Taxpayers, however, won't see
much benefit until the Bertholf is tested and cleared for duty over
the next couple of years.

Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS), the contracting group that is
finishing testing of the $641 million Bertholf, insists the ship is
performing well in sea trials and should be free of the problems that
doomed the earlier vessels.

The Bertholf also has received high marks from the U.S. Navy Board of
Inspection and Survey. The board described the ship =3F the flagship of
the first new class of cutters in 25 years =3F as "a unique and very
capable platform with great potential for future service" in the Coast
Guard.

Inspectors found fewer problems with the Bertholf than is typical with
a first-of-class ship, according to ICGS, which is made up of Lockheed
Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp.

Spokeswoman Megan Mitchell noted that the new cutter has a totally
different design from the eight 123-foot cutters that developed cracks
after their upgrades and are now tied up at the Coast Guard's
Baltimore yard waiting to be dismantled.

The troubled Deepwater program began in the 1990s, when the Coast
Guard sought a modernization project for its aging fleet of ships to
improve its capacity to operate more than 50 miles offshore.

The idea was to issue one contract to manage the entire replacement
over a 25-year period, rather than replacing the fleet one product at
a time.

ICGS was awarded the contract, which eventually will include 91 ships,
124 boats, 195 aircraft, management equipment and logistics.

The first major Deepwater project encountered problems after ICGS
spent nearly $100 million to attach 13-foot ramps to the backs of 110-
foot cutters to allow small boats to launch into the water quickly to
chase suspicious watercraft.

ICGS learned that cracks developed in the hull when the USCGC
Matagorda was fleeing Hurricane Ivan off the coast of Florida in 2004.
When the Coast Guard decommissioned the vessels in November 2006,
Commandant Adm. Thad Allen said the problems were too numerous to
repair.

Adm. Allen said the ships were pulled out of service "to ensure the
continued safety of our crews as we assess additional structural
damage recently discovered aboard this class of cutter." He said the
contractor knowingly installed equipment that failed to meet specific
environmental requirements outlined in the costly Deepwater contract.

The Coast Guard cited cracking on the deck, deformation of the hull
and problems with shaft alignment, and abandoned plans to overhaul all
49 of its 110-foot cutters. In 2005, the eight ships already converted
were prohibited from operating in seas deeper than eight feet.

LOL! I dona't think they'll do too well in seas shallower than
eight feet either!

The ships then were moved out of the way in the Baltimore yard.

In several reports, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
criticized oversight of the construction process and said the Coast
Guard had to maintain more decision-making authority. In March 2004,
the GAO said the Coast Guard's assessment of ICGS's performance
"lacked rigor."

Adm. Allen told a Senate committee last year that the failure of the
123s was unacceptable and that he established a group to determine
responsibility.

The ICGS said it is investigating the failures. Ms. Mitchell declined
to talk about specifics, including the Coast Guard's role in the ICGS
investigation.

The Coast Guard requested reimbursement from the ICGS last May and
confirmed last week that it is working with "other federal agencies
investigating the contractor's failure to deliver 123-foot cutters
meeting the requirements," a spokeswoman said.

The Justice Department declined to say whether it is investigating.

Congress also is trying to resolve the issue. Last week, the House
overwhelmingly passed the Coast Guard's reauthorization bill.
Supporters say it contains safeguards to prevent the mismanagement and
lack of oversight that led to the problems with the 123s. The measure
would prohibit the Coast Guard from naming a contractor the "lead
systems integrator," a chief decision-making role.

President Bush has threatened to veto the bill because of a provision
requiring the Coast Guard to enforce security around liquefied natural
gas terminals. The Senate is expected to take up its version after the
Memorial Day recess.

"The Coast Guard Authorization Act gets the Deepwater program back on
course," said Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman
of the House Committee on Homeland Security. "As someone who cares
about the Coast Guard, it has been disturbing to see the mismanagement
of this program."

It likely will take years to determine the root of the problem, said
one congressional aide, because both sides are trying to "muddy the
waters" of information.

"It's going to be very hard to find a definitive answer on what
happened with the 123s," the aide said, adding that there are no signs
the new cutter has the same problem as the 123s.

I would have thought that long term offshore operations in a 110-foot
vessel would be problematic in any case. That seems way too small
for Pacific winter conditions. At various times, I've felt that
a 312-foot DE and a 175-foot oceanographic research vessel were too
small for winter condition in the North Pacific.


Mark Borgerson

In article 4da4aef0-c673-4819-b746-33816a77e563
@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, says...
Can't they just fix the cracks? Or strengthen the ships in certain
spots with more metal?

Sometimes that just moves the cracks to the end of the reinforcement.
You can only add so much new metal before you start changing
the displacement and the seakeeping characteristics of the hull.


Mark Borgerson

On May 6, 7:49*pm, "David E. Powell" wrote:
Can't they just fix the cracks? Or strengthen the ships in certain
spots with more metal?

These boats were not in good shape when they were turn over in the
first place. The whole class of boats were cursed from the beginning
Originally the CG had picked another class built with steel hulls,
but Bollinger sued and a judge gave them the contract As predicted the
Island class have fiberglass hulls has been nothing but tropuble ever
since. I was a surpize that the chose to try and extend they lifes,
but with the penny pincers holding one to save ervery nickel, I
suspect they had no choise in the matter.

On Wed, 07 May 2008 05:40:42 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom"
wrote:

"Steve Dufour" wrote in message
...
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs...758237019/1001

Scrapped vessels haunt Coast Guard

May 6, 2008

[ SNIP ]
The Coast Guard cited cracking on the deck, deformation of the hull
and problems with shaft alignment, and abandoned plans to overhaul all
49 of its 110-foot cutters. In 2005, the eight ships already converted
were prohibited from operating in seas deeper than eight feet.
[ SNIP ]

This is a pretty serious restriction. :-) Seeing as how the USCG says the
draft of these boats is 7 feet....

AHS


Hell, I start worrying when I get in 8 feet with my boat!
--
John *H*

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 May 2008 22:44:59 -0700, Mark Borgerson
wrote:

I would have thought that long term offshore operations in a 110-foot
vessel would be problematic in any case. That seems way too small
for Pacific winter conditions. At various times, I've felt that
a 312-foot DE and a 175-foot oceanographic research vessel were too
small for winter condition in the North Pacific.

We bounced around in the North Atlantic in the winter in 311 foot AVPs
(WWII sea plane tenders). That was back in the days when the CG was
looking for Russian subs under the guise of "weather patrols" or "air
sea rescue".
These things were originally built to sit in a sheltered lagoon and
fuel PBYs until s aub sunk them. They didn't expect them to last the
whole war.
We survived.

The Flower class corvettes were only 200 feet long and were expected to
operate in the North Atlantic in all conditions.

Even the USN operated a dozen or so of them...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"William Black" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 May 2008 22:44:59 -0700, Mark Borgerson
wrote:

I would have thought that long term offshore operations in a 110-foot
vessel would be problematic in any case. That seems way too small
for Pacific winter conditions. At various times, I've felt that
a 312-foot DE and a 175-foot oceanographic research vessel were too
small for winter condition in the North Pacific.

We bounced around in the North Atlantic in the winter in 311 foot AVPs
(WWII sea plane tenders). That was back in the days when the CG was
looking for Russian subs under the guise of "weather patrols" or "air
sea rescue".
These things were originally built to sit in a sheltered lagoon and
fuel PBYs until s aub sunk them. They didn't expect them to last the
whole war.
We survived.

The Flower class corvettes were only 200 feet long and were expected to
operate in the North Atlantic in all conditions.

Even the USN operated a dozen or so of them...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


The Flowers were said to be able to "roll on wet grass".
They were uncomfortable in almost anything other than a dead flat calm.
The design was based on whalecatchers that operated in the Southern Ocean -
some of the wildest water on earth!

"William Black" wrote in message
...

The Flower class corvettes were only 200 feet long and were expected to
operate in the North Atlantic in all conditions.

Even the USN operated a dozen or so of them...

--
William Black



If you want to see one up close... the father-in-law sailed on this one
after his Norwegian boat came here to avoid being taken over by the Germans.
http://www.hmcssackville-cnmt.ns.ca/history.html