Back in May the Coast Guard issued a Request for Information (RFI) for two classes of small domestic icebreakers. The “Big Beautiful Bill” included $816 million for light and medium Icebreaking Cutters that were presumably included in the 17 new icebreakers that were reportedly funded by the bill.
Turns out the Acquisitions Directorate (CG-9) has a section devoted to domestic icebreakers. They are now referring to these as “Homeland Security Cutters–Light, Medium, and Heavy.
The “Heavy” will be about the size and capability of USCGC Mackinaw and will augment rather than replace Mackinaw.
The eleven planned “Mediums” will replace the nine 140 foot icebreaking tugs (WTGB).
The seven planned “Lights” (pictured above) will replace the 65 foot tugs (WYTL). There are currently six WYTLs in active service and five “In Service, Special”status. It appears the “Light” will be the first to see completion.
The Coast Guard is developing a contract design to be included within its planned request for proposal. The Coast Guard will solicit a contract in 2026 to include completion of the production design and construction.
I have repeated below some of the information found on the CG-9 site below.
Homeland Security Cutter Light Icebreakers (HSC-L)
The Coast Guard’s Homeland Security Cutter-Light Icebreakers (HSC-L) program is modernizing its domestic icebreaking fleet by combining icebreaking and aids to navigation (ATON) functions into a single, versatile vessel. These vessels are designed to replace the aging 65-foot WYTL light icebreaking tugs, ensuring year-round support for the Marine Transportation System in the Coast Guard Northeast and East districts.
HSC-L’s new design reduces crew requirements, training demands, maintenance needs and sustainment costs while enhancing operational efficiency and mission readiness.
The Heavy, Medium, and Light designations don’t square with how the Coast Guard has been classifying icebreakers for the last few years. Additionally, the “Homeland Security Cutters” title is appropriate. It sounds too much like the National Security Cutter which might lead to confusion and it implies that other cutters are not “Homeland Security Cutters” which, really, they all are. I would call them:
- Great Lakes Icebreaker (the Heavy)
- Light Icebreaker (the Mediums)
- Icebreaking buoy boat (the Light)
More descriptive.
Thanks to Walter for bring this to my attention.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
We could do with one of those HSC-L in Gib.
@X, not everyone knows you are a Brit so they might not understand your comment.
Comments are directed to you as the blog owner and not to others as a general audience. This is the norm.
Saying that I should hope readers of a maritime security blog would know Gib meant Gibraltar……
When I read for example here somebody mention Norfolk without qualification I don’t think they mean the top part of East Anglia.
So…………
@X, understood, I just hope my readers can appreciate your comments.
I am wondering about the concept of operation of the Light Icebreaker. I read that some of these are replacing the 49 BUSL. Does that mean that ANT personnel will run them? I’m really curious about the WTGB replacements. I hope they turn out be equipped with azimuthing diesel electric drives with a state of the art distribution system so that the plant can be loaded efficiently at low loads and avoid the wet stacking that comes when you run large diesels at low loads. In keeping with Chuck’s naming convention (NATO type) I would call them WATM. This uses the USCG W and the Navy/Nato AT (Aux tug). If properly configured the WATM could be stationed in western Alaska also for use along the western coast and above the Bering Strait in summer. Back of the envelope it looks like we can get such a tug for about $50 mill. That’s not bad in today’s market. I also noticed there is no mention of what to do about the 2 WTGBs that push an ATON barge.
It does look like the mediums will have an organic AtoN capability.
Do you have any documentation on this? The RFI only talks about icebreaking capability, crew size, and endurance. I didn’t see any mention of an organic ATON system.
@ropeyarns, I did have a hard time finding any reference to AtoN for the mediums but if you look at the two page flyer
https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Portals/10/CG-9/Surface/HSC%20-%20Icebreaker/Final%20HSC%20Fact%20Sheet%20Nov%202025.pdf?ver=T7YP78jVHoh0h00yAH18Rg%3d%3d
It does say, “Features: Services ATONs and conducts law enforcement.”
Conceivably the new ships could still push the old barges or maybe with the new light icebreaking buoy boats they will not need the capability.
But you are right, the RFI did include the AtoN capability for the “light” but not for the “medium.”
Not sure I agree that readers of a blog about American Coast Guard cutters and operations largely conducted in INDOPACOM and Central/South America are going to know Euro-slang for Gibraltar.
Same way I wouldn’t expect someone from Poland to understand DFW or SFO just because they travel by plane.
Chuck was right to clarify (it’s his blog, after all), and not sure why offense was taken because someone was trying to help clarify your statement??? I’m still at a loss why you would need a ship with icebreaking capability at “Gib”???
The reference is the need for a strongly built vessel to play bumper boats with the Spanish who want Gibraltar back and occasionally enter Gibraltar’s waters. The UK has only a couple of small patrol boats permanently stationed there.