The Coast Guard has a rich military history, but we should recognize that, while we may be an “armed service,” we are not prepared for war.
We took the opportunity presented by the apparent end of the Cold War in the early ’90s to cut cost and overhead by removing recently installed anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and Harpoon launching equipment from the 378s and eliminating entire Sonar Tech (ST) rating.
Unfortunately, the holiday from worrying about a possible major conflict is over. China is challenging us, and Russia is resurgent. While it appears the Coast Guard has planned to provide some resources to address contingencies, it also appear we have no real direction as to what the Coast Guard will do if we have a major conflict. Certainly the new major cutters, the NSCs and OPCs, could be turned into credible escort vessels, but it would take months and their crews would need to be trained.
The development of modular systems for the Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) may provide a mechanism for rapidly upgrading our ships while Navy Reserves might provide the personnel and expertise to cut mobilization time from months to weeks.
The Navy currently has over 100,000 reservists, either Selected Reservists or Individual Ready Reservist, subject to recall. A number of them have expertise not resident in the Coast Guard, but useful upon mobilization. At one time these reservists might have gone to man Navy reserve frigates, but there are currently no navy combatants in reserve. As the number of LCSs increase the number of reservists with experience operating and maintaining the mission modules will increase. In addition all LCSs have two complete crews, so in wartime when they will presumably stop rotating crews, they will have an excess of active duty crews training in the mission module systems.
The primary mission modules planned for the LCSs are Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), Anti-Surface Warfare (SuW), and Mine Counter-Measures (MCM). It would not take much to make cutters capable of accepting all or parts of these mission modules, perhaps an OPC “B” class and during overhauls.
There is a very real possibility of inter-service synergy here.
A mission package of equipment, aircraft, sensors, and personnel could be loaded aboard for exercises, providing training for both the Navy and Coast Guard personnel.
The acoustic sensors from the ASW module might be deployed on a cutter bound for a drug interdiction mission in the Eastern Pacific, to help locate drug running semi-submersibles or if they are out there, submarines.
There are very few Navy mine counter measures assets in the US and those we have are not spread out geographically. If there were to be a peacetime mining incident in US waters, it might be possible to airlift an MCM module to the nearest cutter to allow the problem to be dealt with more quickly.
The Danes were arguably more successful with their StanFlex concept. Perhaps we should have used it.
Have to use what the Navy has.
Understood. I meant the Navy might have been better off adopting StanFlex rather than attempting the LCS mission modules. I realize it’s too late in the game now.
@Malph, true. There is also the MEKO system.
The bennifits of the StanFlex is that you can upgrade/repair/replace a system with out taking a ship out of service. The problem is that they are only really beneficial on Ships tasked with Coast Guard duties or ships under a certain tonnage. If I had to choose between a StanFlex or a Mk41VLS, I would choose a mk41 everytime.
But to be able to Turn a Buoy Tender into a Minehunter with a MCM package, or turn a WPC into a ASW, or Sea Denial asset with minimal ease is what I like.
Imagine a StanFlex that can handle a SeaRam, or CIWS, or Mk38 25mm for the Webber Class. Just remember, I’m rambling at 11:40pm as I write this.
Pingback: Modular Mission Packages for Cutters | Chuck Hill's CG Blog
Pingback: From the LCS Mission Modules, What We Might Want, What We Might Need | Chuck Hill's CG Blog