USS Carl M. Levin (DDG 120)
Unmanned systems have become a ubiquitous threat and in many places the Coast Guard is the only military. Consequently it seems the Coast Guard needs a counter to this threat down to at least the Webber class WPCs. Multipurpose systems that would also be useful against low flying aircraft and surface vessels in addition to UAS would also be useful.
“A new and not immediately recognizable launcher has emerged on the U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS Carl M. Levin. Last year, launchers for Coyote counter-drone interceptors appeared in the same general location on two other Burkes, the USS Bainbridge and the USS Winston S. Churchill. The Navy is currently known to be exploring several other options for integrating lower-cost anti-drone interceptors on various warships to bolster their defenses against this ever-growing threat. The new launcher could also be for deploying other kinds of munitions, drones, and/or decoys.
The Navy has been successfully countering this threat, but has been forced to use very expensive systems to counter very inexpensive, potentially numerous threats. Apparently they have been seeking lower cost counters. As a result some new hardware has been showing up on Navy destroyers.
Hopefully, the Coast Guard is following the progress of these lower cost options with an eye toward incorporating them into the Coast Guard.
The good news for the Coast Guard is that the systems appear to be relatively light and do not require extensive deck penetration.
USS The Sullivans (DDG 68) Lancher believed to be for Coyote
USS Bainbridge (DDG 96) Lancher believed to be for Coyote (VIRIN: 250624-N-OK195-1273)
USS Carl M. Levin (DDG 120) Launcher believed to be for Hellfire/JASM（VIRIN: 260329-M-FP389-1205）
These were believed to be for Coyote or Hellfire/JASM. Hellfire and JASM are pretty well known but Coyote is relatively new so I have selected a couple of short videos to explain what it is.
What does the Coast Guard have now?
The 57mm Mk110 particularly with ALaMO is probably a good self-defense counter to UAS. Unfortunately, it appears the more sophisticated MAD-FIRES round never became operational.
The Phalanx is certainly capable for self defense against a small number of UAS but it can use all the onboard ammunition in 20 to 30 seconds. Navy is replacing Phalanx on its destroyers with either RAM or SeaRAM Rolling Airframe Missiles. Hopefully SeaRAM will replace Phalanx on NSCs and be added to the OPCs.
The real problem with both of these systems is that they will only be on NSCs and only the 57mm on the OPCs. These large ships will generally be either in port or on patrol far from their home ports. They are not generally available for short duration force protection missions or for response to near term intelligence. We need a counter that can respond rapidly as threats develop.
The WPCs, WPBs, and to a lesser extent buoy tenders are the likely candidates to do force protection, respond to intelligence, or provide a movable cUAS platform, but the 25mm Mk 38s and .50 caliber machine guns are unlikely to successful against UAS and they can cause collateral damage if not used carefully. Better lead computing sights could be provided for the .50 caliber machine guns. Replacing the 25mm guns with 30mm guns capable of firing air burst projectiles would be a major improvement.
I would really like to see Hellfire or APKWS added to WPCs, WPBs, and yes, even buoy tenders.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
57mm is on the NSC and OPC. I thought that SeaRAM was to be fitted to both. The Coyote or JAGM/Hellfire launcher could also be added, right down to the Webber class. If memory serves me correctly, I recall that some of the Bahrain-based FRCs were already modified with some form of systems.
And I agree, the 30mm Mk38 Mod4 should be on everything from NSC to OPC to FRC to all Icebreakers. Speaking of which, if I had my way, the Polar Security Cutters and Arctic Security Cutters would have the same armament as a NSC or OPC. But I think the Inland Tenders can remain with small arms or at best .50 cal and 7.62mm.
I have seen no indication the Phalanx on the NSCs is being replaced by SeaRAM, although it would be relatively easy, and absolutely no indication SeaRAM will be on OPCs.
Armament for the Arctic Security Cutters is an interesting question. Since they are essentially doing OPC style missions in water where there may be ice, sounds like they should be armed like OPCs, but I doubt since the Polar security cutters will be armed with two 30mm Mk38 mod4s that the ASCs will have anything more than that.
As important almost irreplaceable auxiliaries I think the PSCs should have much better defensive weapons, including perhaps SeaRAM.
AMEN!
The technology in Advanced Hit Efficiency And Destruction (AHEAD) ammunition is available in 30mm, 35mm for use in specific weapons that can program the rounds when fired. I am wondering why this capability is not available in larger calibers?
An AHEAD round functions differently than MAD-FIRES, and is effective on a target (individual or area) with fewer rounds at a significant range based upon caliber, and throw-weight of effectors and explosives used. Why have we not seen this technology used in the 57mm, and that retrofit introduced into U.S. equipment? Can you imagine a 5” (127mm) AHEAD round?
This is why the Mk38 Mod 4 is so important . . . because 50mm (50x228mm) with AHEAD-like rounds already exist, and Northrop Grumman XM913 Bushmaster Chain Gun exist and have been tested. The Mk38 Mod4 mounts are readily converted/upgraded to 50mm. Every Mk15 CIWS mount in the fleet should be so modified, and those 25mm units provided to Allies.
The use of guided rockets on surface combatants should be explored, and not just the Mk66 based systems. Upgrade of Mk66 with improved energetic for the rocket motors should be explored. Likewise the Next Generation Short-Range Interceptor (NGSRI) technology should not just replace MANPADS, but used across all services in/from/on all platforms.