Nice to see the additional 87's there. I look forward to that picture including an FRC in 2010!

PJO, Are you planning on making any statements, or are you simply going to post leading questions? You are beginning to sound like another poster we know with a J in their initials. If you have a point you want to make, state and support it. Then we will decide if its worth response or not. Otherwise, move on.

Don't worry Hiram, I'm sure they will still stand the inport and underway watches just like everyone.

The new rating does not prevent other rates from being BO/BTM. It just creates a better qualified core of LE Cadre to oversee the training/certification of those individuals, as well as keeping up with all the LE related supply/admin functions as a full-time duty.

I don't think MCPOCG Bowen needs any advice from you Mike. He clearly knows his role and carries it out very well...read for yourself -- http://coastguardallhands.blogspot.com/

Great point on both of those. How is the TANB? It looks very versatile and useful.

Ryan,

Nice post! Not time to claim victory yet...In fact, in acquisitions, it is never time to claim victory because modernization must be perpetual. However, we have certainly reached a point where the good is far outweighing the bad, and the bad gets immediate attention to get back into the good column.

Actually alot of good work being done with CBP and USN on maritime UAVs.

Healy is not a Polar Ice Breaker. While its Icebreaking capabilities are impressive, they are not "Polar Class." It is essentially an ice-strengthened research vessel. There is a difference.

In other reports the Coast Guard has said "7-10 years". That is the process from beginning to end. Meaning requirements, design, bidding, award and construction. The time line provided by mouse for Healy was 4 years just for construction. It is easy to understand how another 3 years gets added onto that when you are building from scratch, especially a ship as complex and THICK as a polar icebreaker.

Obviously, there may be ways to do it in less time...but that will all come down to Congressional authority and APPROPRIATIONS.

I think you have the process reversed. You are ultimately responsible for the content of your blog. If you cannot substantiate your claims, then you shouldn't make them. In this case, a third party reviewed your claims and found them lacking. Thus, the onus is on you to support your initial claims, or do the responsible thing and remove them.