Disqus - Latest Comments for Surface_Force

Re: MMA Students Charged With Alcohol Violations

Surface Force — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:45:36 -0000

Midshipmen driving to watch drunk? The place really has gone down the tube the past twenty years as it has sought to turn its back on its naval tradtions and discipline and reinvent itself as University of Maine-Castine. Sad to see.

Re: Write-in candidate list mistakenly posted in city voting booths 10/20/10

Surface Force — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:11:21 -0000

Some poll worker "volunteer" obviously went rouge.

Re: Just how far back do Tea Party candidates want to take U.S.? 09/08/10

Surface Force — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:43:07 -0000

I've never understood why all these liberal moonbats come to Alaska when they have such hatred for its (genrally Libertarian and Republican) residents.

Re: The NOC is Out

Surface Force — Tue, 25 May 2010 16:43:26 -0000

Isn't it DOD which determines Force Structure of the services (based on OSD and QDR guidance), not the services themselves?

Re: Federal Government Operating Status in the Washington, DC, Area: CLOSED Monday, 21 Dec 09

Surface Force — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:33:32 -0000

SF still gets around to the boards, try looking harder Dirty1LT. ;)

Re: Intel expert? Armed offender? EMT's background shows contrasts

Surface Force — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:48:21 -0000

27601, interesting information on him. Thanks for sharing.

Re: Federal Government Operating Status in the Washington, DC, Area: CLOSED Monday, 21 Dec 09

Surface Force — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:41:26 -0000

Anything for my fellow SWOs Chris. Stay thirsty my friend. ;)

Re: Gene Taylor: More Ships for BMD

Surface Force — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:13:18 -0000

"Its time for the Navy to lower expectations (I don't see the money coming)."

I do not see the Navy themselves as having expectations nor strategy, merely stating as a Title 10 force provider what is needed to meet needs of the joint force based on metrics which include historical Theater Commander requests for forces, SECDEF approved Theater Campaign Plans, Guidance for the Employment of the Force (GEF) and the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP). I.e., those already JCS/DOD-approved documents which turn the national security strategy into planning guidance.

Re: Gene Taylor: More Ships for BMD

Surface Force — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:04:02 -0000

CS-21 is written in support of the overarching National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy and National Military Strategy. Until those three documents are written to reflect an isolationist outlook, it won't be changing.

I agree with you that it is not a relationship of equals considering our Navy is first-rate and has no equal. ;)

Re: Gene Taylor: More Ships for BMD

Surface Force — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:27:46 -0000

"How long are we going to tailor our Navy not to serve our needs but those of the global community?"

Until the global community is no longer intertwined with our needs and economy...in other words never.

I would hope that the forthcoming QDR will address capacity for TBMD with the shift to a sea-based system. The great thing about using the multi-mission DDG-51s in Europe and Asia is it will provide additional forces to meet increased Theatre Commander demand for international engagements/cooperative exercises/partnership training events...keeping within the spirit of CS-21.

Re: The Resource Dimension of CS-21

Surface Force — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:51:37 -0000

Prof. Rubel is spot-on! CS-21 gives our naval service overarching maritime strategy in support of the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy and National Military Strategy. His tongue 'n cheek comments at the end notwitstanding, the Secretary, CJCS and service chiefs will undoubtedly be lobbying hard on the hill for the requisite force structure which will support CS-21 strategy.

In addition the the empirical data shown from history and recent Theatre Commander demands for naval forces (where often demand outweighs capacity), the forthcoming QDR combined with the 30 year shipbuiding plan will also provide additional backing the exact capabilities needed in the years to come.

Re: EMT armed to the teeth

Surface Force — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:01:16 -0000

Jim is well respected in the field of IT security; we hope he gets this issue sorted out.

Re: Coast Guard Plagued by Breakdowns

Surface Force — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:57:02 -0000

"You certainly did insinuate that ADMs Loy and Collins weren't subject matter experts."
-I did no such thing, you made that up all on your own.

"In your first post on the matter, you said "Note, even back then not a single person from CG Public Affairs, G-SEN or G-OCU is quoted in the article (on the record or off) to address what it charges." Why should they, when the article quoted a former and current Commandant?
When I pointed this out, your response was "why I didn't think it was the best work of journalism in explaining the true, actual state of Coast Guard readiness in that subject matter experts were not inexplicably not included or quoted." TWO Commandants were quoted, and that isn't good enough for you?"
-No, and as I explained, neither addressed the thesis of the article.

"Did CG Public Affairs attempt to contact USA Today and seek clarification of ADM Loy's and ADM Collins' statements?"
-Apparently not. If they had the article would have referenced it as per standard journalism practice.

"Oh, and the article quoted ADM Collins testimony before Congress.
Are you saying that testimony was false or inaccurate?"
-No.

"Simple question, Surface Force. When the 378's were FRAMed, and got the neat new gun, the Harpoon that was quickly removed, the CIWS and the modern CIC, were the Main Propulsion plants overhauled? Yes or no?"
-Some received Center Section Overhauls, some did not. As per every other Center Section Overhaul conducted, this depended upon the number of hours on the MDE.

"I notice you didn't bother to address my other points"
-Liar.

"Are you saying that my statement "The fact that 378's are making deployments is a testment to the crews that man them, not to the "seniors" who, for the balance of their service lives, underfunded annual maintenance and overhaul requirements, which has resulted in numerous engine and other system casualties, and emergency hull wastage repairs," is false?"
-Yes.

"Are you saying that my statement "The fact that we still have all original 378's in commission is testament to the "wisdom" of the "seniors" who so thoroughly screwed up the design, funding, and overall procurement of the NSC replacement cutters that they are years behind schedule and horribly over budget," is false?"
-Yes.

"So what "lies, deceit and misinformation" have I propagated?"
-My last three replies to your feckless attacks on myself have outlined it.

Re: Coast Guard Plagued by Breakdowns

Surface Force — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:20:18 -0000

You stand corrected on one false claim and then go on to make another one asserting that I insinuated ADM Loy and ADM Collins were not subject matter experts and that "people from Public Affairs were". You are wrong on that dishonest claim as well. In fact, I never mentioned the Commandant and former Commandant as neither addressed the thesis of the article. ADM Loy did not comment on the charges on the material condition of the fleet and ADM Collins was obviously not interviewed for the article. Instead, the author used a public statement then-CCG had previously made. A more balanced piece would have included commentary/response from the service (and more specifically the SMEs at G-SEN or G-OCU that I mentioned) as to the allegations of the politicos and the author. CG Public Affairs is the medium to make that happen as part of their primary duties and responsibilities include setting up interviews with program managers and/or compiling the requested information and responding appropriately; this is how basic media relations work (if fairly practiced) for those of us with a "real awareness of the Coast Guard".

You are also wrong about MMA. That program was created for the WMEC-210s, not the WHEC-378s. Again, like above, before you go charging at others and accusing them of having a "lack of real awareness of the Coast Guard" it would behoove you to learn a bit more about it yourself lest you continue to embarrass yourself like this.

As far your lame ad hominem accusing me of engaging of "worship at the altar of CG leadership", make no mistake, my support is 100% on the side of the Coast Guard when they are right and 100% against those who engage in lies, deceit and misinformation/disinformation, engage in tearing it down or try and foster an agenda at odds with our Strategic Planning Direction (SPD). If my own support for the Coast Guard bothers you so much, too bad.

Re: Coast Guard Plagued by Breakdowns

Surface Force — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:43:37 -0000

Show me anywhere I stated "shoddy journalism"? I said "not the best work of journalism IMO" and went on to state why I didn't think it was the best work of journalism in explaining the true, actual state of Coast Guard readiness in that subject matter experts were not inexplicably not included or quoted. Sorry if my opinion about how USA Today could have taken a more balanced approach in covering the subject bothers you. Too bad for you, deal with it.

And apparently it is indeed pretty complicated for you if you cannot comprehend what stated above at why the article was hyperbole at the time, as borne out and evidenced by the programs the OP and his mini-me irresponsibly ignored to where we are today with new assets coming online and multiple COAs being debated at the Flag level - all of which are designed to ensure no loss in service or deliverables as we decom the WHEC-378s commencing in FY-12.

As far as presuming what you believe, it's very obvious you disagree with me that your seniors with actual experience in surface operations and naval engineering with responsibility for major cutter maintenance and support are doing their jobs in a proficient manner considering you have a strange propensity to come out of the woodwork right at me both times I have corrected the misinformation and disinformation of some and also defended the effectiveness of Coast Guard program managers. I also presume you are dishonest, not only for you putting words in my mouth (I never said "shoddy journalism", you did and then had the audacity to challenge me to defend something YOU YOURSELF stated!), but also considering your continued blank stare (despite my clear explanation) is an obvious feeble attempt to set up your punchline about the incongruity of our maintenance programs and bridge plan. This, despite the fact that not a single Tier 1 cutter deployment has failed to be met and resource hours have not dropped.

Re: Coast Guard Plagued by Breakdowns

Surface Force — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:12:03 -0000

Like I have stated before, for someone who claims you are uninterested in my commentaries defending the Coast Guard, its people and its leadership, you once again sure seem to spend an awful lot of time following me around. It is up to you to conduct your life as you see fit, but if this is your best shot, I will not be trembling in my boots anytime soon.

Its fairly obvious to the most casual observer that the hyperbole in the article is outdated. Furthermore, not even a passing reference was made to the programs I mentioned which were approved soon after it was published and thus setting up an obvious one-sided (and innacurate) premise for this thread. Whether that was staged through ignorance/lack of experience or intentional deception on the part of the OP and his colleague who came to his defense I am not sure but either way does not reflect highly upon commissioned officers who should know enough to actually become informed, especially prior to advancing the crux of an arguement which essentially attacks and calls out the very service this site claims to support.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, I think Coast Guard leadership has been doing a decent job of not only developing a good bridge plan, but also lobbying for the resouces the service needs. We will see more of this with the soon to be approved Naval Operational Concept 2010 which is to be signed by all three naval service chiefs (USN/USMC/USCG). You obviously disagree, but then this is somewhat understandable as in your case you yourself have admitted merely being on the outside looking in at the process instead of actually playing a part in it.

Re: Coast Guard Plagued by Breakdowns

Surface Force — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:35:52 -0000

When did I say that certain ships are not in need of replacement? The whole reason they are being recapitalized is due to the fact they are in need of replacement. Until that is complete, we have came up with a "bridge" approach which meets our operational requirements while effectively managing risk.

Your complaint against Congress is misguided as well. Congress realized the need for new ships based on the Coast Guard's request and the Coast Guard has been (and still is) getting them: the WLB-225 (which is FOC), the WPB-87 (which is FOC), the WMSL (which is in production) and the FRC (which is in production). If your end-game is to spout blame on the internet for the replacement timeline being thrown off by 2-3 years, I guess you can blame the ICGS contractors for the delays on the NSC/WMSL and FRC. I'll leave you and Mike De Kort to tag team that one though.

Re: Coast Guard Plagued by Breakdowns

Surface Force — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:02:32 -0000

"Better is simply not good enough". LOL! Yes Dan, I sometimes do forgot how you sand peeps have a propensity to run your mouth about things you have no idea about. However, I just happen to have better respect and appreciation for the bona-fide professional opinions of those who were operating ships and machinery before you were born, or if not that, the remainder of them when you were still in grade school.

The programs I described (and that you apparently are unfamiliar with) are the bridges that take the '378 and '110 fleet to the WMSL and FRC reaching FOC. Given the cutter resource hours targets have been met the past 3 fiscal years (and the more important fact that every single Tier 1 deployment requirement has been met), I'd agree with RADM Brice-O'Hara, CG-DCO and her subordinate staff that it working as intended.

Your statement that "much more work needs to be done" on the subject of planning for material maintenance and operational readiness of the cutter fleet is a disengenous statement at best and reckless one at worst for you, a young Junior Officer to make against your seniors, as it implies that those with actual responsibilities (and the experience you lack) for the are neglectful in their duties.

Re: Coast Guard Plagued by Breakdowns

Surface Force — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:18:57 -0000

Better Chuck. The LT neglected to mention to the readers here the programs which are now in effect (and were in the pre-decisional phase at the time this article was written): Fleet Sustainment 2016 for the Hamilton WHEC-715 Class and Midlife Extension Project (MEP) for the Island WPB-1301 Class as a stopgap/bridge to the WMSL and FRC (now both in full production). Also, note on the aviation side, the complete re-engining of the HH-65 to the "C" model has now been completed as well.

Not the best work of journalism IMO. Note, even back then not a single person from CG Public Affairs, G-SEN or G-OCU is quoted in the article (on the record or off) to address what it charges . But then, of course, that would have thrown some water on the hyperbole of the politicians and the writer. E.g., "The Coast Guard’s ships, planes and helicopters are breaking down at record rates, which may threaten the service’s ability to carry out its post-9/11 mission of protecting ports and waterways against terrorism." Four years later, and no thanks to any of the amateurs who like to play armchair professional mariner and cry wolf, we all appear to have survived.

Re: APB for 378 Sailors Past and Present

Surface Force — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:50:03 -0000

" jdolbow [Moderator]
surface force you were warned and are now banned from commenting."

Oh really? I guess you could say I warned you as well youngster...several times now, in fact.

The Coast Guard does not haphazardly endanger its personnel nor does it operate "floating fire traps" as your novice self dishonestly tries to imply to those who may read this site not familiar with the Coast Guard, our policies or our approach to operational performance while mitigating risk whenever possible. Furthermore, strategic decisions on the core construct, maintenance cycles and recapitalization for our operational forces (to include major cutter decom and transition) are done after detailed and independently verified - through the chain of command - studies taking into consideration a full appreciation of the current state of readiness and future impact. Such decisions are also proposed, vetted and made by professionals in the Office of the Assistant Commandant for Capability (CG-7) in conjunction with the recommendations of the respective Operational (Area) Commanders...all with years more experience and technical knowledge man for man each self than you will ever have driving your desk on the beach. It is also readily apparent to the rest of us here from the sensationalist bilge you are peddling that you are not one. I guess then it is understandable that you would deny others the ability to challenge your simplistic and amateurish writings on this topic - which are based on nothing but hyperbole - by having them "banned from commenting".

Re: APB for 378 Sailors Past and Present

Surface Force — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:28:07 -0000

No, "the issue" is this thread's intial misrepresentation of the service, its people and its ships. Myself pointing it out for what it is is just that. I am not "the issue" (despite this newest attempt at deflection on your part after you previously failed in your earlier attempts to make it you).

"Courage of (my) convictions". HA! You are the one hiding on the internet trying to rationalize an inexperienced JO with no seatime calling out your own service's leadership by "questioning" them of negligently operating "a floating fire trap" and now are now on record yourself of bashing your superiors by accusing them of being complicit in running a "decrepit surface fleet". I'm certain you don't have your own "courage of your convictions" to say that to anyone in authority on these matters when your actual name can be attributed to it. You really need to practice what you preach before I will take you seriously in regards to what I do or don't need to be doing. Irregardless, and again to what I said before on what you think about me (since we've established reading comprehension is definitely NOT your strongest suit): "I'm sorry, are you my boss? Why on earth would I have the slightest care in the world what you do or do not believe about me? You must have me mistaken for someone else. Or possibly, no one else." "Courage of your convictions", please. lol

Re: Why I Joined US Coast Guard Forces… Vincent Pica, DCAPT-elect, SECLIS-S

Surface Force — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:22:33 -0000

Vincent, thank-you for all you do. I know you probably hear that alot, but you are indeed a vital part of the organization.

Great website too BTW!

Re: APB for 378 Sailors Past and Present

Surface Force — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:01:33 -0000

I'm sorry, are you my boss? Why on earth would I have the slightest care in the world what you do or do not believe about me? You must have me mistaken for someone else. Or possibly, no one else.

"Ducking the issue"? Again, you are not the issue. Deal with it.

Re: APB for 378 Sailors Past and Present

Surface Force — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:43:52 -0000

Actually, change my earlier statement. Reading comprehension is not apparently, but rather obviously not one of your "strong suits". I told you before, you can keep your "challenge" as I am not impressed by it. Sadly for you, this thread is not about you, despite your attempt to make it so. Your continued whining demanding me to debate your post history instead of the inflammatory and innacurate rhetoric I challenged on this thread is nothing more than a fervent hope on your part rather than a coming reality.

Re: APB for 378 Sailors Past and Present

Surface Force — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:24:55 -0000

Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit, so I'll say again to you what I said before: "Just know that as long as I choose to be around your "friends" in your apparent little, ad-hoc online social support network who lack the requisite credibility to be doing so in the first place, yet egotistically insist on knee-jerk of slamming the Coast Guard, its subject matter experts, leaders, policies, ships and personnel will be challenged accordingly in accordance with the same "First Amendment" that you apparently believe only applies "one-way" to those who want to throw rocks at the organization"."

For someone who claims I am a "waste" of everyone's time, you inexplicably seem to want to spend alot of your own on me.

As far as myself or anyone else in the Coast Guard feeling "threatened" by you, I doubt that very much given you appear to save your criticisms of your seniors and your shipmates for what you believe to be the safety and anonymity of the internet where you think you will not be called to account for them.