An End to Navy Assistance with Drug Enforcement?

Posted on by

US Navy photo, USS Gary (FFG 51) Nov. 5, 2002

According to a recent press release, “A Miami-based U. S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment and the crew of USS Gary (FFG-51) stopped a go-fast carrying more than 1,100 pounds of cocaine approximately 300 miles off the Pacific coast of Columbia, Feb. 23.”

It was a common enough scenario, but it may be coming to an end, at least for a while. The Navy has cancelled deployment of two frigates slated for counter-drug operations due to sequestration.

The Commandant noted, “If those [frigates] go, we don’t have enough platforms to put Coast Guard Law Enforcement Teams on. We would be down to the point where we would only be using Coast Guard cutters and we don’t have enough [of those] to meet the demand JIATF South has for us.”

27 thoughts on “An End to Navy Assistance with Drug Enforcement?”

  1. Which is why I think the US Navy should have handed over those Frigates to the US Coast Guard as well. It would have made sense and those frigates are perfect for Anti Piracy, Counter Drug, and Naval Escort.

    Reply ↓

      • That’s why Bill, I have advocated that the US Coast Guard seriously take the Perrys as a stop gap/ Interim cutter for their aging 270’s,210’s and 378’s. It would only be temporary until their OPC/NSC came online. Judging by how long it would take to get the new OPC and even the NSC online, it would make sense for the US Coast Guard to take on the Perry FFG’s as a stop gap, interim cutter until the new OPC/NSC came online. It would even give the US Coast Guard more platforms for Anti Piracy, counter drug and Naval escort missions. The equipment on the Perrys would still stay in place except for replacing the Mk-13 Missile launcher with a 25 MM bushmaster cannon Mk 38 with the Typhoon weapon system on the bow.

  2. May actually agree with Nicky on this one, they were built mid 80’s younger than most cutters. A decent stop gap measure until opc/nsc program gets up to speed.

    Reply ↓

      • Your both missing the point, sequestration is the reason this is happening. It’s already been decided that our cutter fleets underway hours will be cut, and the cuts in funding are going be offset by reducing repairs/maintenance of our already old cutter fleet. So how does adding more ships to the “problem” solve any of the “problems” we now face because of sequestration. Plus we are forcing active duty members out, reducing our manpower. Plus most of the Perry class frigates are all 25-40 years old, not that much newer than our 378’s. The Navy has had it’s own problems keeping them going. We are having enough problems keeping our own 378′, 210′, and 270’s going, not to mention the worn out polar rollers and the 45 year old USCGC Alex Haley.

        Adding Perry class frigates would only add to our budget problems, besides the fact that under the budget cuts we don’t have the money to keep them going or the manpower to crew them. Another reason we can’t afford the Perry class is that they only have 1/3 to 1/2 the cruising range of a 378′.

        GMCM Bill Wells wrote an article on the reasons why the Perry class frigates would be bad for the Coast Guard, and that was when they weren’t yet worn out from age. That should tell you all that you need to know about why we shouldn’t have them.

    • A couple of built mid 80’s Perrys could be temporary used as OPC/NSC until the permanent OPC/NSC is made available and ready. It would be a decent stop gap or a bridge to the OPC/NSC. I would keep the ASW gear and the radar that comes with the Perry’s.

      Reply ↓

      • We are facing budget cuts, and sequestration, we no longer have sonar techs and the A-school for them, our knowledge base and experience conducting ASW is long gone from the Coast Guard. The Navy is under sequestration as well, so don’t imply that they can provide us the ST’s to operate the ASW suite. In fact they have a CVN sitting pier side with it’s core refueling suspended and another CVBG’s deployment cancelled. The Navy is forcing people out too. Plus we don’t operate ASW capable Seahawks, we operate the non ASW capable Jayhawk. WE DON’T HAVE THE MANPOWER AT THIS TIME TO ADD AND CREW PERRY CLASS FRIGATES. Their cruising range sucks, another reason we can’t afford them. What part of all of that don’t you understand. Please, please, please, stop sitting in your room daydreaming about the Coast Guard being America’s Navy, we have different missions. Good people are being forced to leave the service, don’t you understand that??.

      • @Guest Coastie
        I didn’t say we take the Perrys as a permanent cutter. All I said was, to take the perrys as a temporary stop gap measure while awaiting for OPC’s to come online. If you look at how old the 270’s and 210’s are, the Perrys can buy the USCG time while preparing for the OPC. If we did get some perrys, we can start retiring the older 210’s and to some extent the 270’s as well.. Even Bill wells have said that their was precedence that the US navy even loaned vessels to the US Coast Guard. Which is why I think it would be wise to see if the US Navy can loan us some perrys and the perrys can be manned with a Mix of US Navy/USCG crews.

  3. just what we need, short legged manpower, intensive boats, and an excuse for congress to reduce funding for new builds. i can hear them now. ” well we gave you these nifty navy rafts so maybe you don’t need 25 opv’s now” no friggin thank you.

    Reply ↓

  4. All this is just part of our cyclic history. Since 1798 the USN has provided vessels to help enforce the revenue laws and serve as revenue cutters both here and aboard. It operated vessels in the Philippines following the Spanish-American War. The various embargoes have also seen navy gun boast (schooner rigged) assist. The problem is there is no real permanence. It is something the Navy likes doing to keep their ships at sea but only when they have nothing else to do. Historically, the Navy Department has also used the forays into revenue enforcement to justify some of their takeover of the RCS/CG attempts. The argument was the Navy could do the work better–they are, after all, the maritime experts. However, the navy had, and has, a difficult time understanding they take orders from the civilian collector of customs then and DHS today.

    There is precedent for loaning naval vessels to the Coast Guard and they did not impinge upon the Coast Guard’s overall building program and actually helped it along. The aging flush deck WWI destroyers were one reason the Coast Guard justified building the Lake Class cutters. Of course, it did not work for the WAVPs, WATF, or the WDE.

    Reply ↓

  5. As originally conceived the FFGs were not supposed to be escorts for carrier battle groups, they were to be convoy escorts for ships moving supplies and equipment across the Atlantic to counter a Soviet invasion of Europe. Under that circumstance, they would be built to meet a future emergency, but not required by the Navy for normal operations, it would have made sense for them to be given to the Coast Guard in lieu of building 270s if funding were given to the CG to cover the additional operating cost. The total cost to the nation would have been less than the Navy operating FFGs and the CG operating 270s. I suggested this in an article in the Feb. 1983 Naval War College review, but that was 30 years ago. The opportunity has passed.

    The FFGs were not well maintained by the Navy. Maintenance would be more expensive than continuing to maintain the ships we have now. Their propulsion is exclusively by gas turbine, with the small exception of the trainable bow thrusters, so operating at under 20 knots is not economical, meaning fuel costs would also be higher than the ships we have now. Even mothballing their excess capabilities their manning requirements are higher than the ships we have now, so personnel costs would also be higher.

    We are better off continuing to maintain the very old ships we already have, to bridge the gap until the new ships are ready, rather than taking on only slightly newer much more complex ships.

    Reply ↓

    • Here’s the question, how long can we maintain the 270’s & 210’s that we have before they are worn out. The Perry’s would be seen as a temporary solution and would only stay until the Future OPC comes online. Once the OPC comes up to speed, the perrys would be retired very fast. To keep the perry’s going, maybe we can have a mix of Us Navy/CivMar/USCG crewing them.

      Reply ↓

      • Your question was already answered, do you read?! The Navy is in financial crisis too, no people to spare. The Navy is forcing people out. The Perry’s require bigger crews and are more expensive to operate than our cutters. plus the Navy ran them hard and wore them out. Let it go already.

      • How long can we keep the 270’s and 210’s going before we wear them out like the US Navy did to the Perry’s. The Perrys would have been nice back then, but now that the Future OPC is not going to happen for 10 to 15 yrs down the road, we don’t have nothing to bridge between the 270/210’s and the OPC. I’m all for taking off the shelf ready to go stuff such as the Holland class OPV or the Sigma class Corvette.

  6. I think the JHSVs will support LEDETs. At least, that is what I have been told.
    They can L&R boats up to 20,1 ST at short stay. And their flight deck can take one H-60 turning with one parked.

    Reply ↓

  7. The CG should follow the Navy’s lead and pull its ships from operating as well. We aren’t sophisticated enough at the Washington budget game to do that though, not to mention if we actually did that, nobody would miss us out there harassing people on the high seas for a minute.

    Reply ↓

    • Thanks for the link, I have added it to my reference page. Most of the cooperation looks like the CG supporting NOAA rather than the other way round. In practical terms NOAA probably has their vessels fully employed and their missions and area of operation is unlikely to permit much use of the LEDETs. I took a look at their fleet here: http://www.moc.noaa.gov/ There may be circumstances where they might serve. Putting a LEDET on a fisheries research vessel going into the US EEZ west of Hawaii might be useful, but of course they are relatively slow, unarmed, and apparently none of their ships are helicopter equipped, so they are unlikely to be very useful for drug enforcement.

      Reply ↓

  12. More news that the ships, the Navy most commonly use to assist the CG in drug enforcement, are going away faster than their replacements are arriving. The Navy is planning to decommission 12 ships in FY2014 including seven frigates.

    http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130710/NEWS/307100033/7-frigates-list-FY-14-decommissionings

    “DECOM LIST

    “The full fiscal 2014 decommissioning list, arranged by the slated inactivation date, per NAVADMIN 175/13:
    ■ Frigate Ford, Oct. 31, 2013
    ■ Frigate Thach, Nov. 15, 2013
    ■ Frigate Nicholas, March 17, 2014
    ■ Frigate Robert Bradley, March 28, 2014
    ■ Missile range instrumentation ship Observation Island April 1, 2014
    ■ Frigate De Wert, April 4, 2014
    ■ Frigate Rentz, May 23, 2014
    ■ Mine countermeasures ship Avenger, Aug. 30, 2014
    ■ Frigate Halyburton, Sept. 8, 2014
    ■ Attack submarine Dallas, Sept. 26, 2014
    ■ Fast combat support ship Bridge, Sept. 30, 2014
    ■ Amphibious transport dock Denver, Sept. 30, 2014

    Reply ↓

  13. The Navy times is reporting that the last of the Perry class FFGs will be decommissioned on 21 Sept. 2015. These are the ships that most commonly host Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments for Drug Patrols. To some extent the LCSs and Joint High Speed Vessels are replacing them, but they don’t seem to be available nearly as frequently as the outgoing ships. http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140702/NEWS04/307020082/Decommissioning-plan-pulls-all-frigates-from-fleet-by-end-FY-15

    Reply ↓

  14. I’ve said it a thousand times, cut out the open door policy where we give them housing, college, cars credit cards with unlimited use and so forth and so on. The billions saved would be able to let the CG do what they are suppose to do with good equipment for a change. With all the cuts, the Navy has their own problems.

    Reply ↓

Leave a reply to Sonny Cancel reply