Rep. Garamendi in November 2024 "Our industrial base has failed us." If he had ever sat in a USCG/shipyard meeting, his quote would have been "our insanely bloated federal bureaucracy has failed us miserably." Be careful what you wish for, Finland. You have no idea...
It's far from obvious that MIL-SPEC is superior to commercial standards. I spent a fair bit of time going through the stability and compartmentalization standards last year. It's hard to compare, as the calculations involved are simply different. What I can say is that the hull strength, compartmentalization, stability, and redundancy requirements of a commercial spec icebreaker that carries passengers- like Le Commandant Charcot- are quite stringent. A panel of shipbuilders and other experts who looked at this in 2017 recommended commercial specs over MIL-SPEC- they had more time, more people, and better access to the specifications that I do.
That being said, our current icebreakers aren't armed (beyond small arms). I think the PSC is supposed to have some 30mm guns. And there aren't many ice-strengthened combatants worldwide. The Russian project 23550 icebreaking patrol ships that have featured so prominently in press reports have a deck gun and deck space for a containerized missile system- something we haven't seen deployed yet anywhere.
For the U.S. Coast Guard, if you want a combatant, you can bring one along. For the projected price of our PSC you can get about 2 commercial-spec PC2 icebreakers and a National Security Cutter with change. If we need ice capable combatants- and we may at some point-I think it's best to give that mission to the U.S. Navy.
Rep. Garamendi in November 2024 "Our industrial base has failed us." If he had ever sat in a USCG/shipyard meeting, his quote would have been "our insanely bloated federal bureaucracy has failed us miserably." Be careful what you wish for, Finland. You have no idea...
I think come back after DOGE doc drop. Heads gonna roll.
Substituting commercial standards for MIL-SPEC is fine until the shooting starts.
It's far from obvious that MIL-SPEC is superior to commercial standards. I spent a fair bit of time going through the stability and compartmentalization standards last year. It's hard to compare, as the calculations involved are simply different. What I can say is that the hull strength, compartmentalization, stability, and redundancy requirements of a commercial spec icebreaker that carries passengers- like Le Commandant Charcot- are quite stringent. A panel of shipbuilders and other experts who looked at this in 2017 recommended commercial specs over MIL-SPEC- they had more time, more people, and better access to the specifications that I do.
That being said, our current icebreakers aren't armed (beyond small arms). I think the PSC is supposed to have some 30mm guns. And there aren't many ice-strengthened combatants worldwide. The Russian project 23550 icebreaking patrol ships that have featured so prominently in press reports have a deck gun and deck space for a containerized missile system- something we haven't seen deployed yet anywhere.
For the U.S. Coast Guard, if you want a combatant, you can bring one along. For the projected price of our PSC you can get about 2 commercial-spec PC2 icebreakers and a National Security Cutter with change. If we need ice capable combatants- and we may at some point-I think it's best to give that mission to the U.S. Navy.