Coast Guard icebreaker funding reallocated to US-Mexico border wall

[ocean size]

https://www.stripes.com/news/coast-...reallocated-to-us-mexico-border-wall-1.540857

Democratic lawmakers, worried about growing Russian and Chinese competition in the Arctic, have criticized the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to free up money for a U.S.-Mexico border wall by reallocating $750 million that had been earmarked for a polar icebreaker.

The U.S. icebreaker fleet is miniscule in comparison to Russia, which has more than 40 icebreakers, according to the Congressional Research Service. The melting ice has degraded Russia’s natural border defenses, prompting Moscow to respond with more ships and new military facilities in the region.

Recently, Russia has raised alarms by declaring plans to expand its Arctic domain.

“Russia has claimed natural resources and territories in the Arctic that exceed its international rights and is investing in ice-capable military assets to back up that claim,” a letter signed last week by eight House lawmakers said.

China, which has no territorial claim in the Arctic but considers itself a stakeholder, has two heavy icebreakers and plans to acquire more.

Various nations are eyeing the Arctic region with greater interest as ice caps melt, which is opening up access for military, commercial and research vessels. But even as the ice caps weaken and shrink, ships must still carve out passageways.

• 

The Coast Guard cutter Polar Star, with 75,000 horsepower and its 13,500-ton weight, was designed more than 40 years ago, but remains the world's most powerful non-nuclear-powered icebreaker. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security removed $750 million designated for new Coast Guard polar icebreakers, potentially freeing money for a border wall.
U.S. COAST GUARD PACIFIC AREA

The Arctic region is believed to hold an estimated 13 percent of the world’s untapped oil reserves, 30 percent of its natural gas and vast mineral resources, according to U.S. Geological Survey estimates.

The new icebreaker had been intended to boost the Coast Guard’s fleet, which includes one working heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, and one disabled heavy icebreaker, each of which have exceeded their 30-year service lives. The fleet also operates a medium icebreaker and a research vessel with light ice-breaking capability.

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.”

“We urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider the misallocation of resources, which would undermine all 11 of the Coast Guard’s statutory missions and place our nation at a distinct economic, geopolitical and national security disadvantage for decades to come,” the letter said.

In 2013, Homeland Security recommended building three new heavy icebreakers and three medium ones, but no money has been allocated for those vessels.

If funded in this budget cycle, the new heavy icebreaker would not enter service until 2023. Coast Guard officials said they don’t want any additional delays.

“We need that ship now,” Coast Guard commandant Adm. Karl Schultz said Wednesday during a speech in Washington.

The Arctic had been the scene of intense military activity for the United States and Soviet Union, but both countries mostly withdrew from the region when the Cold War ended.

The Arctic Council was formed in 1996 and now has eight countries with territory abutting the region — the U.S., Russia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Denmark and Iceland.

Meanwhile Russia and China go hog on Arctic resources, including a third of global natural gas reserves. But hey at least some Central Americans won't steal our low paid agriculture jobs, or they will have to get a good ladder to do it.

 

[Willy Womack]

One ship in the arctic vs (hopefully) helping to secure our border. I wonder which one will affect the average American more?

Btw Eastern Shipbuilding in Panama City FL has a 2.4 billion dollar contract to build 20 something cutters for the coast guard. Look it up.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

 

[Quasar44]

The spineless and fake GOP party does not want the wall- they too want open borders. This nation cannot survive with this massive invasion that is unprecedent in human history

 

[Arkain2K]

Meanwhile Russia and China go hog on Arctic resources, including a third of global natural gas reserves.

And an Ice Breaker is going to do anything about that?

Ice Breakers aren't made to drill for fossil fuel. They break ice around the Artic to assists navigation in the Northern Sea Route, especially now that the ice are melting and more shipping lanes are opening up to merchant vessels. All this talk about them extracting gas is just, well, hot air.

 

[ocean size]

And an Ice Breaker is going to do anything about that?

Russia has forty of them for a reason. Ice is thin enough for the first time that these areas are accessable but you still need icebreakers. Homeland security and the coast guard think it is worthwhile to have enough.

Do you not want a piece of the now expanded energy pie?

 

[ocean size]

One ship in the arctic vs (hopefully) helping to secure our border. I wonder which one will affect the average American more?

Btw Eastern Shipbuilding in Panama City FL has a 2.4 billion dollar contract to build 20 something cutters for the coast guard. Look it up.

I'll take your word for it. How is building new cutters relevant though? As for which will affect the average American, if the renewables boom continues maybe it doesn't matter how big of a claim China and Russia get on gas. How do you think the wall (if successful) will affect folks other than increased veggie prices?

 

[ocean size]

Besides natural gas, 40% of the rare earth minerals and the fastest Europe to Asia trade route by far is now becoming available. See how much infrastructure Russia has put in place so far:

https://www.rt.com/news/414295-russia-leading-arctic-exploration/

 

[HomerThompson]

The spineless and fake GOP party does not want the wall- they too want open borders. This nation cannot survive with this massive invasion that is unprecedent in human history

Russian bot detected.

 

[Arkain2K]

Russia has forty of them for a reason. Ice is thin enough for the first time that these areas are accessable but you still need icebreakers. Homeland security and the coast guard think it is worthwhile to have enough.

You're barking up the wrong tree here. The reason for Russia (and Canada) to ever-expanding their fleet of Ice Breakers is Transportation. And those countries needs a lot of them, for geographical reason.

https://www.arctictoday.com/rosatomflot-faces-increasing-challenges-needs-icebreakers/

If the bulk of our country is next to the Artic instead of just Alaska, we would need a fleet of Ice Breakers just like Russia and Canada for our shipping needs. But as it stands, one more or one less Coastguard cutter doesn't mean much to our national security at this time. Makes great rage bait though, since some evil politicians want to divert the fund for this unit to border security, which is arguably more important right now than the Artic since cartel activities have spilled over the border for years now. Folks in the Open Border crowd certainly wouldn't like that idea for sure.

Do you not want a piece of the now expanded energy pie?

Drilling for oil in the Artic? Even those who will click Like on your post are against that massively-unpopular idea, I think.

We will build more Ice Breakers as needed, and they will be used to assists navigation as more of our merchants experiments with the Northern Sea Route, not to drill for oil.

 

[Quasar44]

I never said I support putin and I have no Russian dna

 

[Arkain2K]

Apparently we're getting 6 new ones, and like I suspected, they have absolutely nothing to do with our energy exploration and extraction.

New US icebreakers to challenge Russia’s dominance of Arctic
Michael Evans | August 3 2018

America has only two operational icebreakers, while Russia has 45​

The United States will invest billions of dollars on ships that break up polar ice to challenge Russia’s dominance in the Arctic.

American navy commanders have repeatedly criticised the lack of any clear strategy from the Pentagon for the region, especially because ice-melting conditions are opening up opportunities for merchant shipping lanes. The coastguard has only two operational icebreakers, compared with 45 that Russia owns. China has one but has an ambitious building programme that has raised concerns in the US.

James Mattis, the US defence secretary, declared in a national defence strategy document in January that the Pentagon’s top priority was to prepare for a “great power competition” from Russia and China. However, officials warned that in the Arctic the military was lagging behind those of its two rivals in capability and technology.

The discrepancy in the number of icebreakers is expected to be addressed soon after Congress passed the $717 billion defence authorisation bill this week. President Trump is expected to sign the bill into law imminently. It allows for the purchase of six icebreakers, the first of which is intended to be completed by 2023. Each will cost an estimated £700 million.

The US has only one heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, which is more than 40 years old. There are two other smaller ships but one of them, the Polar Sea, is no longer operational and is being used for spare parts. The third, Healy, a medium-weight vessel, was designed for scientific research.

Russia has 11 more icebreakers in planning or development, including three nuclear-powered vessels that are due to be completed by 2020. It is also building up its military strength in the region and plans to extract the area’s vast oil and natural gas resources.

Admiral Karl Schultz, commandant of the US coastguard, told a conference in Washington that three of the six planned American icebreakers needed to be heavy versions to compete with the Russians and Chinese.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...llenge-russia-s-dominance-of-arctic-59wn96d0g

 

[Willy Womack]

I'll take your word for it. How is building new cutters relevant though? As for which will affect the average American, if the renewables boom continues maybe it doesn't matter how big of a claim China and Russia get on gas. How do you think the wall (if successful) will affect folks other than increased veggie prices?

I was only pointing out that plenty of money is still going towards coast guard ships. I assume they're being prioritized according to importance.

As for the wall, it's simple supply and demand (assuming illegals already here are also deported). Less workers will lead to higher pay in more industries than just agriculture (and higher vegetable prices, oh well). Less competition for housing will lead to lower housing and rent prices. It benefits all Americans except those who thrive by exploiting a desperate, cheap labor pool and slumlords (and maybe regular joes whose entire net worth is locked into their home).

I'll try to find the link but I saw a bit on Vice News where they pointed out that illegals contribute something to the tune of 1.3 trillion dollars into the housing market. The irony is they were trying to scare people (homeowners, I assume) into opposing Trump and his policies but if anything it made me support him more.

 

[ocean size]

I was only pointing out that plenty of money is still going towards coast guard ships. I assume they're being prioritized according to importance.

As for the wall, it's simple supply and demand (assuming illegals already here are also deported). Less workers will lead to higher pay in more industries than just agriculture (and higher vegetable prices, oh well). Less competition for housing will lead to lower housing and rent prices. It benefits all Americans except those who thrive by exploiting a desperate, cheap labor pool and slumlords (and maybe regular joes whose entire net worth is locked into their home).

I'll try to find the link but I saw a bit on Vice News where they pointed out that illegals contribute something to the tune of 1.3 trillion dollars into the housing market. The irony is they were trying to scare people (homeowners, I assume) into opposing Trump and his policies but if anything it made me support him more.

Decent points. I don't think the wall will be successful though.

 

[sverre054]

We have needed new Heavy icebreakers for 20 years. These are home ported in Seattle, and its sad seeing the state of these ships. The Polar Star has shorter and shorter deployments, because so much stuff will breakdown. Its sister ship the Polar Sea, has been nothing but a parts ship for a decade. These are vial for Antarctic research, but they are needed in the Arctic to clear and patrol US interests, and help northern communities. We have to pay for private, usually Russian icebreakers to do the job. The Coast guard as a whole is underfunded, and its equipment is the oldest of any military branch. They keep expanding there role, and make them focus more on terrorism and international drug smuggling, but take away from the guards core mission.

 

[ocean size]

You're barking up the wrong tree here. The reason for Russia (and Canada) to ever-expanding their fleet of Ice Breakers is Transportation. And those countries needs a lot of them, for geographical reason.

https://www.arctictoday.com/rosatomflot-faces-increasing-challenges-needs-icebreakers/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...illion-icebreakers-to-carve-new-arctic-routes

If the bulk of our country is next to the Artic instead of just Alaska, we would need a fleet of Ice Breakers just like Russia and Canada for our shipping needs. But as it stands, one more or one less Coastguard ship doesn't mean squat to our economic security. Makes great rage bait though.



Drilling for oil in the Artic? Even those who will click Like on your post are against that massively-unpopular idea, I think.

We will build more Ice Breakers as needed, and they will be used to assists navigation in the Northern sea routes, not to drill for oil.

You are correct that it is about more than Russia making claims in international territory for gas, as I mention above trade routes and rare earth minerals as well. The point is doubling our heavy Icebreaker fleet isn't happening 'as needed' because of a campaign promise popular among Trump's base.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Lol getting cucked in South East Asia by China, getting cucked in the Arctic by Russia. Yet I'm sure the defense budget will be even bigger next year.

WTF is Murka doing with all that money?

 

[2arctanx]

seeing mexicans climb the wall with their ladders would be hilarious

 

[NoDak]

Yet I'm sure the defense budget will be even bigger next year.

Please Stop.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/c...thorization-months-ahead-of-schedule.3805551/

 

[ocean size]

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/08/04/is-the-coast-guards-icebreaker-project-doomed/
So House Republicans are trying to move money bc we need 18 billion to build the first chunk of wall, and they need to get reelected. Sounds like the Senate might prevent it from happening though.

Right now for months a year we have zero access to the arctic

Partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill over funding President Donald Trump’s border wall might doom the Coast Guard’s plan to begin building a needed icebreaker.

A draft of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act percolating out of the House of Representatives proposes to strip $750 million out of the Coast Guard’s 2019 budget, part of a larger effort to sluice $5.2 billion in federal funds to barrier construction along the international boundary with Mexico and hike spending on Immigration and Customs Enforcement programs.

The move comes while some Republican lawmakers jockey to prove their support of the president as primary elections loom and Democrats angrily decry cuts to the Coast Guard, a DHS agency with funding coming from both the Homeland Security and Pentagon budgets.

In the meantime, Senate leaders have continued to earmark the money for a heavy icebreaker program the Coast Guard says is essentially to maintaining America’s presence in the Arctic.

“A lot of this will come down to what the Senate does,” Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California, told the Navy Times on Friday. “This might come down to lawmakers seeking leverage and there might be a deal that’s already been done on the Senate
A Marine combat veteran, Hunter has a unique perch watching the politics play out. An early and ardent supporter of Trump and a strong champion of border security, he’s also been a steadfast proponent for buying icebreakers for the Coast Guard.

He’s also on the House Armed Services Committee, which overseas Pentagon funding of the Coast Guard, and chairs the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.

In early 2017 he got so frustrated with dickering over the Coast Guard’s budget that he called for removing it from DHS and giving it to the Pentagon.

“Right now, we can’t really do anything substantial in the Arctic. Our icebreaker is in dry dock for months out of the year. If it breaks down and gets stuck up there we’ll have to ask the Russians for help,” Hunter said.

Contractors are mending the Polar Star now at a shipyard in Vallejo, California. The repairs include replacing the cutter’s 16-foot-diameter propellers.
Hunter’s warning was backed up by a Congressional Research Service report published Wednesday. Capitol Hill’s nonpartisan research arm told lawmakers that the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaking fleet has dwindled to one heavy ship — the Polar Star — and a medium model, the Healy. A second heavy breaker, the Polar Sea, suffered an engine fire in 2010 and can’t deploy.

The heavy breakers entered service in 1976 and 1978, putting them well beyond their projected 30-year service lives. In fact, the Coast Guard harvests the Polar Sea to keep the other breaker operational.

The Navy operates no icebreakers.

A DHS analysis in 2013 concluded that the Coast Guard needs up to six icebreakers — three heavy and three medium ships — to meet mission demands.

“Assured year-round surface access is an essential element of U.S. national security,” said Coast Guard spokeswoman Lt. Amy Midgett in a written statement emailed to Navy Times on Friday. "As interests and activities evolve in the Arctic, it is essential we have the capability to provide that access.

"Additionally, the Coast Guard is responsible for maintaining the safety and security of the maritime transportation system and coordinates national search and rescue efforts. Increased activity in the polar regions continues to grow, and the Coast Guard must be properly resourced with icebreaking assets to protect U.S. security, environmental, and economic interests in these harsh environments.”

Rivals to American interests in the Arctic haven’t cut their icebreaking fleet. Russia now boasts 46 breakers, with 11 more under construction and four more planned. Even China, a nation with no polar territories, owns three breakers and there’s another on the way, according to the Congressional Research Service.


The Coast Guard hoped to begin building a new heavy icebreaker next year so that it could enter the fleet by 2023. Congress gave the polar icebreaking program nearly $360 million through 2018, all but $60 million from the Navy’s shipbuilding coffers.

The Coast Guard’s proposed budget for 2019 had sought $750 million in acquisition funding, enough to construct the heavy icebreaker and start on a second. But all of that could be diverted to the border wall.



Early estimates for the first phase of the president’s wall — about 300 miles of construction and another 700 miles of upgrades to existing barriers — hovered at $18 billion.

To Hunter, gutting any funding from Coast Guard is misguided because that ultimately could hurt efforts to interdict the smuggling of drugs and people. The Coast Guard is the primary maritime agency operating counter-narcotic smuggling and undocumented immigration over seaways.

“It’s like a balloon,” he said. “If you squeeze the land border by adding security the smugglers will shift to the ocean.”

Hunter thinks there’s enough money for both Trump’s wall and the icebreaker but wants Senate leaders like Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and top Navy officials lend a voice for the Coast Guard, the smallest of the armed forces with a budget last year of only about $10.6 billion.

And that means pointing a spotlight on the Arctic Ocean, a petroleum-rich region many critics think the Pentagon too often overlooks.



“Go and look at the National Defense Strategy and ask yourself why the Arctic was left out,” said Hunter.