FOUR WEBBER CLASS PATROL CRAFT. 220822-A-KS490-1182 STRAIT OF HORMUZ (Aug. 22, 2022) From the left, U.S. Coast Guard fast response cutters USCGC Glen Harris (WPC 1144), USCGC John Scheuerman (WPC 1146), USCGC Emlen Tunnell (WPC 1145) and USCGC Clarence Sutphin Jr. (WPC 1147) transit the Strait of Hormuz, Aug. 22. The cutters are forward-deployed to U.S. 5th Fleet to help ensure maritime security and stability across the Middle East. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Noah Martin)
The House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday approved an increase to the Coast Guard’s fiscal 2024 budget, forwarding a bill to the full chamber that funds a 5.2% pay raise for members, a commercial icebreaker, four additional fast response cutters, and an extra HC-130J Super Hercules aircraft.
In addition to the projects in the original budget request, the committe has obviously, they have been looking at the Coast Guard’s FY2024 Unfunded Priority List.
The Unfunded Priority List included requests for an additional $1.6B.
The House Appropriations Committee recommendation would fund about $430M, including two big ticket items, four additional Webber class patrol craft and an additional C-130J. The unfunded priority list had listed the total price for the cutters and aircraft as $538.5M, so the markup may not include all the support costs for the cutters and missionization costs for the aircraft included in the Unfunded Priority list.
This still has a way to go before becoming law, but the Coast Guard has been receiving substantial bipartisan support and for the last few years Procurement, Construction, and Improvements budgets have been increased substantially over the requested amounts. There seems to be wide support for additional Webber class cutters to serve in the Western Pacific. As I noted in March,
We shouldn’t expect everything on the list to be approved, but I think we will definitely see the additional C-130 and at least three additional FRCs. Some of the other items will probably be approved as well. Those items not funded in FY2024 will likely be included in the FY2025 budget.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
Do we know if all four additional FRCs are going to be homeported in Guam/Indo-Pacific? I believe there are already three over there.
All the FRCs in the original program and more have already been funded. This will bring us up to 69 FRCs. Talk has been that the CG would open a new base in the Pacific, possibly in American Samoa to help counter IUU in US and Federated States of Micronesia EEZ.
Interesting…I imagine these four additional FRCs would definitely push that possibility toward reality. I’m unsure what existing military facilities are there now in American Samoa, but I’m sure the island would welcome a permanent CG presence…
American Samoa essentially does not have any US military right now, but they do have a large fishing industry.
Dan, you might want to look at this earlier post. “A New Coast Guard Base In the Western Pacific?”
My first thought after seeing that post was that the USCG would likely need an additional order of FRC’s similar to the PATFORSWA 4-ship +up
i think the frc’s are punching their weight in the pacific.
Definitely doing work they were never originally intended for.
On the backs of their crews. It sounds exotic to visit all these island nations but at what cost to the people doing the work?
The Webber class cutters in Guam and Hawaii are such a small part of the fleet I doubt detailers have trouble finding candidates that want to serve there. On the other hand, I have seen some indications that billets with PATFORSWA might be harder to fill.
With the Navy deciding to terminate all the LCSes early and the lack of replacement for Cyclones and Mk.VI PBs, it would make sense for the Navy to buy 6-10 FRCs of their own for use in the Persian Gulf.
The Navy has shown many times that they have NO desire to operate small ships. They mothballed the Mk PBs after only a few years of ops. They have had plenty of chances to jump on the FRC ship buy and didn’t. The Nay’s resistance to the Marines new medium landing ship program proves that they are only interested in big ships with lots of electronics and missiles. Anything that reduces the amount of money they can spend on large surface combatants doesn’t get ANY support from the Navy Brass. They are pretty solidly against ideas that make sense if that idea isn’t enormous, gray, and makes lots of boom.
Understood. Which begs the question: What is 5th Fleet using for patrol vessels in the Persian Gulf, other than the USCG?
My thought was more along the lines of Congress forcing it on the Navy.
@Bill Smith, I think the navy would point to the international effort and the use of Unmanned systems.
In the latest plan, the Navy keeps six Freedom Class LCS. These will have the surface warfare package permanently installed and will effectively replace the Cyclones.
According to the same plan, 15 Independence class LCS will be kept with the MIW package permanently installed.
These ships will function as Avenger Class replacements.
If the Navy had its way, it would retire all of the LCS but Congress has not agreed to this.
I think even the Navy wants to retain some Independence class for MCM. No other alternative in sight.
The Navy made a play recently to retire all LCS. It was close but Congress ultimately did not give permission.
The Navy signaled they were looking at alternatives (other than the LCS) for the MIW mission.