“Navy’s New 381-Hull Fleet Plan Recommits To Big Amphibious Warfare Ships” –The Drive

Five white 311-foot cutters of Coast Guard Squadron Three, assigned to support Operation MARKET TIME tied up alongside Navy repair ship USS Jason (AR-8) at Naval Station Subic Bay in the Philippines, 4 August 1967. From inboard to outboard:
USCGC Half Moon (WHEC-378);
USCGC Yakutat (WHEC-380);
USCGC Gresham (WHEC-387);
USCGC Barataria (WHEC-381) and
USCGC Bering Strait (WHEC-382)
U.S. Coast Guard Historian’s Office. Photo by CDR Richard Morse, USCG, Commanding Officer USCGC Barataria (WHEC-381)

The Drive has one of several posts reporting on the new Navy Fleet Plan and Shipbuilding projections. The US Naval Institute News report is here.

This brings to mind two of my favorite grips:

  • First that he Coast Guard has no similar long-term plans, and second,
  • Coast Guard assets are not considered in as part of the “Battle Force.”

A good part of the reason our ships soldier on long after they should have been replaced may be because we have not been informing the executive branch and congress about our long-term needs.

I can imagine an adverse reaction to my suggestion that cutters should be part of the “Battle Force”, but you need to understand what the Navy includes in that category. These are not all high-powered warships. Currently the US Navy “Battle Force” is 299 ships. Of those, 59 are USNS ships that are almost completely unarmed, have civilian crews, and no electronic countermeasures. They include oilers, logistics ships, expeditionary fast transports, towing salvage and rescue ships, and ocean surveillance ships. In addition, it includes some commissioned ships that are not really warships, like command ships and expeditionary base ships. The relatively small future Landing Ship Medium is expected to be included as well.

If we have a naval conflict with a major power (e.g., China) the Navy is going to need the Coast Guard’s help. Cutters will help enforce blockades, round up hostile merchant shipping and fishing vessels, rescue crews from sunken ships, play host to unmanned systems, provide harbor defense and force protection, and probably ultimately be equipped as second line warships.

Cutters count, so they should be counted.  

Vessels I would include in the count would include at least all the Icebreakers, National Security Cutters, Offshore Patrol Cutters, and Medium Endurance Cutters and possibly ocean-going buoy tenders and Webber class WPCs.

1 thought on ““Navy’s New 381-Hull Fleet Plan Recommits To Big Amphibious Warfare Ships” –The Drive

  1. I don’t understand those reforms planned by the outgoing Commandant General to the USMC. To me the MEU was a well rounded formation for emergency tasking. It is the sort of capability the RN should be looking at fielding.

    I hope cutters get sonars soon. It is something that RN appears to think not as important as it was with T45 having ‘questionable’ ASW capability and the T31 having no at al.

Leave a comment