Late Note: Unfortunately I let my frustration with the slowness of out cutter replacement and my natural snarkiness color this report, leaving the impression that the Mexican Navy was replacing its ships faster than the Coast Guard, which is not the case. Rather this ship was decommissioned because it had a damaging fire.
The German Navy blog “Marine Forum” reports,
The Mexican Navy has sunk its decommissioned patrol vessel „Uribe“ (P-121) off the Baja California coast where it will become the state’s first artificial reef (divers attraction).
I cannot help but notice this ship compared favorably to our 210s being 18 years newer, larger, faster, and better armed.
Shouldn’t this be embarrassing to someone?
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
depends on how deep?
What did they replace it with? Frustrating on some level that the ship is so much younger but also sorta proud that the CG can keep the ships operating.
The ship that was decommissioned was built in Spain, but now Mexico builds their own offshore patrol vessels in government Naval Shipyards, they have evolved progressively over four classes, and statistically the newest look a lot like 270s. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaxaca-class_patrol_vessel) They have about 23 of these MEC equivalents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Navy#Present_fleet
Looking into this a little closer, I was at a loss as to why they decommissioned this one, since they still have some WWII Auk class minesweepers that they use for patrol ships. So it was not clear why they chose to decommission this one. Apparently it was decommissioned after a fire in 2011. http://baja.com/rosarito/former-navy-vessel-to-serve-as-centerpiece-of-rosarito-underwater-park/
If I remember correctly, the URIBE suffered a major engine room fire. SEMAR decided it wasn’t worth the cost to bring her back into service.
I think this one had fire/accident and it was determined to be not economical to repair it.
I think your frustration over how slow assets are being replaced needs to sit with the CG leadership. The RAND study showed the program of record and the acceleration it felt was needed post-911 to meet the nations needs. Neither the 5 or 10 year accelerations were funded. That is on congress. However we are 5 years behind the baseline plan which was funded. Which makes us 10-15 years behind RAND’s recommendations. What caused the delays? The 123 debacle, the FRC composite hull issues and the NSC hull longevity issues. (With the latter still being a problem). All of these caused by ICGS. In addition ICGS, the LSI in charge, was under a performance guaranty to meet that schedule and budget. It did not. The problem has been made far worse by the USCG leadership who refuse to exercise that guaranty. Not only that but they allowed the budget and timeline to go from 20 years and $17B to 35 years and $35B. Those most responsible are Admiral Loy, who is still on Lockheed’s board, drawing his pay for that and a pension, and Admiral’s Stillman, Allen, Loy and Zunkunft. Each one perpetuating the problem and even possible running out statutes of limitations.
How is NSC hull longevity still a problem?
I was told NSC hulls on NSC#1 and #2 have cracked and are scheduled for dry docking for repairs. They cannot operate in rough seas or in cold water. The unmanned vehicle that was intended to extend the area of coverage has never worked and the system of recovering small boats from the rear has failed another test just recently.
You have bad information.
So someone who is anonymous says I have bad info?
I received my info from someone very in the know.
Massive conflict of interest
Shipbuilding mogul gives largest single donation to Coast Guard Museum group
http://www.theday.com/military/20151202/shipbuilding-mogul-gives-largest-single-donation-to-coast-guard-museum-group
With the DoJ v Bollinger case ongoing, a contract action by the USCG dependent on that and Bollinger not taking any responsibility for the 123s or making the USCG whole – this should not be happening. The Commandant should not only refuse this money but demand Bollinger do the right thing relative to the 123s first. This is near blood money and could easily be viewed as a bribe. Bollinger is accused of using thin steal to build the 123s to save money. Then they lied about the strengthen calculations to cover it up. That process made the hulls weak and put the USCG and public at risk.