Military Sealift Command Sequestration - MSC

From the LATimes

Sequestration may seem like a long-ago problem that hasn’t had many of the disastrous effects once feared, but for one group of people, it could really start to hurt on Oct 1. That’s when the nation’s new budget will go into effect, and unless something is changed, the program known as the Maritime Security Program, part of the Merchant Marines, is going to take a big haircut. About one-third of its 60 militarily useful commercial ships, which carry most of the nation’s military supplies to and from places such as Afghanistan, are going to lose their subsidy and be eliminated.The impending deadline comes as the U.S. prepares for war in Syria, and as Hollywood releases a blockbuster about the Merchant Marines. “Captain Phillips,” a movie starring Tom Hanks and Catherine Keener, will be released in October, and tells the story of the Maersk Alabama, a U.S.-flagged ship hijacked by Somali pirates.
The Merchant Marines is a fleet of civilian-owned vessels staffed entirely by U.S. citizens, used in both peace and war – the first-ever U.S. merchant marine ship helped capture a British vessel in 1775. In the Maritime Security Program, part of the Merchant Marines, there are currently 60 ships, which helped provide 95% of the cargo supporting the military in Afghanistan and Iraq. The government prefers to use U.S. ships with U.S. citizens for security reasons but uses private vessels to save money. Each ship receives an annual subsidy of about $3.1 million per year from the government.
But in 2012, the program had a surplus, and Congress authorized only $174 million for the program, rather than $186 million. Then, sequestration occurred, implementing cuts to the lower amount. Now, unless Congress restores the original funding, some of the ships will have to be pulled out of commission, said Don Marcus, president of the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, which represents many of the merchant marines.
“It’s just completely astounding that for the price of a couple helicopters, you can put this much of a dent in our national security,” Marcus said.
A separate proposal would also lessen the Merchant Marines’ role in providing food aid to foreign countries. Rather than shipping American-grown food to foreign countries in need of aid, it would give the countries money to grow their own food. This would also lessen the need for Merchant Marine ships, which carry much of this foreign aid.
With less funding for Merchant Marines ships, shipping companies will likely staff cargo ships with foreign seamen, who are less expensive than American seamen and who follow different standards on ships, Marcus said. This will affect employment for the 12,000 members of the Merchant Marines. Some cargo will have to be shipped by the military for security reasons, which will cost more money than the marines would have, Marcus said.
A 2006 study by the Military Sealift Commission found that if the military were to try and replace the ships tt uses from the Military Security Program with its own vessels, it would have to spend $13 billion. If the military does not have enough Merchant Marines ships to use, it will either trust its supplies to foreign seamen, outsourcing U.S. jobs, or pay for its own military to transport supplies, according to a March letter on this issue signed by “Buck” McKeon, the chair of the House Armed Services Committee.

“Without funding the MSP and ensuring the continued operation of its maritime security fleet, America would either have to place the safety of our troops and the security of our nation in the hands of foreign shipping interests or be forced to spend billions more of the taxpayer’s dollars,” the letter said.

Oh well. Here we go, 1994 all over again.

But - There are five laid up containerships in the port here, one of them practically brand new. Up and down the river and over in Hamburg I’m sure we can round up 10 more.

I’m sure Uncle Sugar can charter any of all of 'em when the need arises. So who is right? The MMP and the MSP operators, or just the market…?

Not my plan or desire, but it is the truth …

Merchant Marines?

Military Sealift Commission?

where do these authors come from? Kansas?

now why are 20 ships at risk here? Isn’t sequestration supposed to take 5% of the budgets of the various gooberment agencies which should equate to losing 3 ships from a 60 ship program? Not like I want to lose any but three is not twenty.

[QUOTE=+A465B;118951]Oh well. Here we go, 1994 all over again.

But - There are five laid up containerships in the port here, one of them practically brand new. Up and down the river and over in Hamburg I’m sure we can round up 10 more.

I’m sure Uncle Sugar can charter any of all of 'em when the need arises. So who is right? The MMP and the MSP operators, or just the market…?

Not my plan or desire, but it is the truth …[/QUOTE]

Getting ships is one thing, finding American mariners is another. If an American merchant marine is not needed for defense I wish someone would have said something 20 years ago, I’d of done something else.

As far as the number of ships at risk the number I was told was around 10 or 12.

One other thing, with regards to the news reporting, it’s never going to be 100% accurate. A reporter’s job is to interview people who know more about something then they do and then write about it for people who know less. Of course when a person with that specific expertise reads it they are going to see errors. As long as the gist of the article is correct the errors are not important.

I will say that I do not believe that all the Pure Car Carriers put under the MSP constitute “militarily useful ships”. They do not have deck strength or overhead height to carry anything our military has on wheels except maybe an HMMWV or the project cargo ships that frankly can’t carry much of anything efficiency for the military except maybe a patrolboat. Multipurpose ships, Self sustaining containerships and Ro/Ro’s are what should be in the MSP.

[QUOTE=c.captain;118961]I will say that I do not believe that all the Pure Car Carriers put under the MSP constitute “militarily useful ships”. They do not have deck strength or overhead height to carry anything our military has on wheels except maybe an HMMWV [/QUOTE]

A Pure Car Carrier (PCC) is light, I don’t know how many PCCs are in the MSP fleet. A PCTC can take heavy and over-height cargo. 'Typical ramp/deck capacities are 80 to 150 tons. An Abrams tank is 60 tons.

You are, of course, right but this wasn’t always the case. Each paper had, at one point, a dock reporter who would spend the bulk of his time down on the docks talking with sailors and longshoreman and such. Now with budget cuts the guys with industry specific knowledge have all taken buyouts leaving generalist who know how to write but little else. To make matters worse these generalists are given crazy deadlines. Ten years ago a reporter would have been given a week to write (and fact check!) a story like this but today I’d be surprised if the reporter got more than a day or two to write the story. Many of the reporters end up finding gCaptain (usually a source or a distant relative who went to a maritime academy mentions us… other times they find us via google or wikipedia) and we can help point them in the right direction (we get a couple calls per week from the top media outlets) but the lower budget papers don’t even bother to do at… they just print what they can cobble together in a few hours.

“Trust me I’m lying” by Ryan Holiday (Disclosure, Ryan’s a friend of mine) is a great book if you want to learn just how broken the media is today. Luckily some blogs (I like to think gCaptain is one of them) do a good job at taking up the slack but, according to Ryan, most blogs (e.g. Huffington Post, Gawker) have even lower standards than the budget papers.

[QUOTE=john;118975]You are, of course, right but this wasn’t always the case. Each paper had, at one point, a dock reporter who would spend the bulk of his time down on the docks talking with sailors and longshoreman and such. Now with budget cuts the guys with industry specific knowledge have all taken buyouts leaving generalist who know how to write but little else. To make matters worse these generalists are given crazy deadlines. Ten years ago a reporter would have been given a week to write (and fact check!) a story like this but today I’d be surprised if the reporter got more than a day or two to write the story. Many of the reporters end up finding gCaptain (usually a source or a distant relative who went to a maritime academy mentions us… other times they find us via google or wikipedia) and we can help point them in the right direction (we get a couple calls per week from the top media outlets) but the lower budget papers don’t even bother to do at… they just print what they can cobble together in a few hours.

“Trust me I’m lying” by Ryan Holiday (Disclosure, Ryan’s a friend of mine) is a great book if you want to learn just how broken the media is today. Luckily some blogs (I like to think gCaptain is one of them) do a good job at taking up the slack but, according to Ryan, most blogs (e.g. Huffington Post, Gawker) have even lower standards than the budget papers.[/QUOTE]

I think the standard for a story in a national, non-specialized publication should be how well it conveys good information to the general public. The article about the funding does that I think. If the general thrust of the article is correct no need to get worked up because the writer called a line a rope or some such.

Like you said writers have limited time and there is a point of diminishing returns to correcting minor errors that don’t change the basic story.

These small errors are actually helpful as they remind people with specialized knowledge that the writer is not an expert in that field. The ironic thing is we often consume news in areas outside our expertise uncritically if it seems plausible.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;118989]I think the standard for a story in a national, non-specialized publication should be how well it conveys good information to the general public. The article about the funding does that I think. If the general thrust of the article is correct no need to get worked up because the writer called a line a rope or some such.

Like you said writers have limited time and there is a point of diminishing returns to correcting minor errors that don’t change the basic story.

These small errors are actually helpful as they remind people with specialized knowledge that the writer is not an expert in that field. The ironic thing is we often consume news in areas outside our expertise uncritically if it seems plausible.[/QUOTE]

Well the general tone of the article was that with losing 20ships from MSP that the Military Sealift Command will become short of US flag ships to carry their cargo and would have to resort to chartering foreign vessels or using their own which they do actually already have sitting in reserve. MSC has a fleet of LMSRs that are sitting idle as well as access to a pack of RRF ships also sitting doing nothing. Yes, the military can transport its own cargo with its own ships (there is no law that says it MUST charter vessels). Yes, they cost money to operate but the ships are paid for and all that is needed is manpower. If we lose the 20 MSP ships (which is more likely 8 to 10 ships), right there would be a pool of seafarers to crew up these warm stacked vessels so in the end no need at all for using foreign bottoms. Of course, MSC being the skinflint cheepassed bastards they are would howl that the money to run these vessels will have to come directly out of their budget and will likely do everything they can to use the lowest cost foreign ships they can find! Just like our mighty military to ignore longstanding Federal statute to save a buck at the cost of the US mariner! I have always been a proponent that the MSC and MarAd owned fleet of ships be used continuously in both commercial and military trade. Of course, many are old steamers but they still can sail albeit expensively and the gas turbine powered LMSR’s were a mistake. Is fact, all the LMSRs should have been built with commercial use in mind and they might have actually been able to earn some of their costs back instead of forever just sitting. Build and charter was successfully done with the MARINER class breakbulk ships in the 50s and could be done today if anyone in the Navy or MarAd gave a shit but they don’t. It makes too much sense for the US Federal Gooberment of 2013 to do something that actually works economically.

.

[QUOTE=c.captain;118993]Well the general tone of the article was that with losing 20ships from MSP that the Military Sealift Command will become short of US flag ships to carry their cargo and would have to resort to chartering foreign vessels or using there own. I really don’t know if that is in fact reality but don’t we have a fleet of LMSRs that are sitting idle? What about a pack of RRF ships? Yes, they cost money to operate but they are paid for and all that is needed is manpower. If we lose the 20 MSP ships (which is more likely 8 to 10 ships), right there would be a pool of seafarers to crew up these warm stacked vessels so in the end no need at all for using foreign bottoms. Of course, MSC being the skinflint cheepassed bastards they are would howl that the money to run these vessels will have to come directly out of their budget and will likely do everything they can to use the lowest cost foreign ships they can find! Just like our mighty military to ignore longstanding Federal statute to save a buck at the cost of the US mariner![/QUOTE]

If 20 ships are going to be lost and you want to maintain a pool of mariners someone is going to have to pay them to sit around to scrape and paint compared to actively sailing. 'skills are quickly going to get stale.

The MSP is by far the cheapest way to maintain sealift capacity both ships and experienced crew. You only have to pay the differential rather then the full freight.

The RRF and LMSRs are part of the picture but If you lose a dozen ships you have less capacity and a loss of expertise. If a decision is made that it is better to use foreign ships fine but why cut the part of the program that gives you the most bang for the buck?

This report is from 2009 but lots of good info: Marine Security Program Impact Evaluation.

There is also a benefit to having a U.S. presence world-wide.

[QUOTE=c.captain;118952]…Isn’t sequestration supposed to take 5% of the budgets of the various gooberment agencies [/QUOTE]

I don’t know about the 5% number, but if it is a flat percentage per agency, it can’t be applied across the board, some expenses can’t be cut, notably anything to contractors. The price/compensation is set in the contract, and can’t be reduced. So that fixed percentage has to be absorbed by expenditures for which there is some discretion. And on the discretionary spending, it’s also not necessarily across the board, some cuts like maritime programs (or overpaid federal employees) are more politically palatable than others.

[QUOTE=jdcavo;118998]I don’t know about the 5% number, but if it is a flat percentage per agency, it can’t be applied across the board, some expenses can’t be cut, notably anything to contractors. The price/compensation is set in the contract, and can’t be reduced. So that fixed percentage has to be absorbed by expenditures for which there is some discretion. And on the discretionary spending, it’s also not necessarily across the board, some cuts like maritime programs (or overpaid federal employees) are more politically palatable than others.[/QUOTE]

well if that is the case, they wouldn’t the contracts with the vessel owners enrolled in the MSP be sacrosanct? Aren’t they good for 5 years at a stretch?

[QUOTE=c.captain;118961]I will say that I do not believe that all the Pure Car Carriers put under the MSP constitute “militarily useful ships”. They do not have deck strength or overhead height to carry anything our military has on wheels except maybe an HMMWV or the project cargo ships that frankly can’t carry much of anything efficiency for the military except maybe a patrolboat. Multipurpose ships, Self sustaining containerships and Ro/Ro’s are what should be in the MSP.[/QUOTE]

i sail on PCTCs frequently. just got off one 10 July, back from sandbox. i would be surprised if there is a single PCC left in the US fleet. 3 or 4 decks on a typical PCTC are raiseable via onboard hydraulic scissor lift truck. i have carried blackhawks, hueys, chinooks, MRAPs, bradleys, abrahms, combat earth movers, etc. everything from super heavy to super tall. i would also wager that MARAD would not offer MSP to PCC even if we had any left. possibly Jean Anne on hawaii run is PCC.

there is tons of stuff of stuff to bring back from the Kuwait/Iraq and Afghanistan. Army LT Col. i spoke with back in June told me it would probably take another 1.5-2.5 yrs of continuous voyages to bring the stuff back we are keeping.

PCTCs are very versatile. their deck load capacity is most certainly heavy duty, as well as the stern ramp, and very tall cargo can be loaded. they are all Panama canal capable. i don’t know if that is true all LMSRs.

i would think MSP cuts are going to hit container ships first or possibly bulkers, if any of them are on the dole.

and yes whoever wrote this article is from Kansas or maybe Saskatchewan. a few things off the mark seem to be the idea that with no MSP a company will just drop it’s american seaman for foreigners, then that would mean not US flag. that only works if you never had to be US flag from the start as far as engaging in Jones Act trade. if company can’t make money w/o MSP and they have to be US flag, then they either lay up the ship for a while (if they can afford it) or they go bankrupt.

and who is “eliminating” those ships? just b/c you lose your MSP doesn’t mean your ship is eliminated. where did they get this bonehead? the US gov’t has no say in what MLL or Central Gulf or Waterman or any other ship owner does with their ship just b/c their MSP gets cut.

Don Marcus was either grossly misunderstood by the reporter or much of his interview badly paraphrased or taken completely out of context. i think this reporter might as well have been listening to a bowl of rice krispies as far as his grasp of the subject shows us.

i think the writer of this article should be eliminated along with the proofreader and editor in chief of that paper.

pretty sure MSC contracts/charters signed for 5 yrs are up for review annually. should be a formality, unless you are not doing you job as per contract (can you say TAL?), or political climate has changed…

i still also believe that just b/c MSP funding was approved, doesn’t necessarily mean it was allocated… they never thought sequestration would actually happen, so why bother making sure money was there?

Jean Anne is a PCTC.

[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;119242]

and yes whoever wrote this article is from Kansas or maybe Saskatchewan. a few things off the mark seem to be the idea that with no MSP a company will just drop it’s american seaman for foreigners, then that would mean not US flag. that only works if you never had to be US flag from the start as far as engaging in Jones Act trade. if company can’t make money w/o MSP and they have to be US flag, then they either lay up the ship for a while (if they can afford it) or they go bankrupt.
.[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe Jones Act ships can be in the MSP, just to be clear.

http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/MSP_Brochure_June_2013.pdf

According to Marad, all MSP ships are American flag vessels.

http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/MSP_Fleet_JUNE_2013.pdf

[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;119242]… a few things off the mark seem to be the idea that with no MSP a company will just drop it’s american seaman for foreigners, then that would mean not US flag. that only works if you never had to be US flag from the start as far as engaging in Jones Act trade. if company can’t make money w/o MSP and they have to be US flag, then they either lay up the ship for a while (if they can afford it) or they go bankrupt.

and who is “eliminating” those ships? just b/c you lose your MSP doesn’t mean your ship is eliminated. where did they get this bonehead? the US gov’t has no say in what MLL or Central Gulf or Waterman or any other ship owner does with their ship just b/c their MSP gets cut?

Don Marcus was either grossly misunderstood by the reporter or much of his interview badly paraphrased or taken completely out of context. i think this reporter might as well have been listening to a bowl of rice krispies as far as his grasp of the subject shows us.
[/QUOTE]

Non-Jones act ships can just reflag foreign. What it says in the article matches what I’ve been told.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;119268]Non-Jones act ships can just reflag foreign. What it says in the article matches what I’ve been told.[/QUOTE]

yes, of course, that’s what i’m saying, but if they are moving any containers say from chas to savannah, houston to chas, etc., then they are jones act and simply can’t just re-flag. article over-simplifies things and is misleading.

[QUOTE=dredgeboater;119248]Jean Anne is a PCTC.[/QUOTE]

don’t know much about her, just know she was built for hawaii run. didn’t figure they spent extra money for PCTC ratings/deck load capacity,etc., but thanks for info.