Below is a news release from SOUTHCOM.

I love it. They boarded the vessel and took custody of the crew before sinking the vessel. Hopefully they will be the source of additional intelligence.

The video above shows that they were towing four smaller vessels. Were these small boats carrying drugs? They don’t say.

The news release doesn’t say where this happened but since it was done in cooperation with Ecuador it had to have been in the Eastern Pacific. We have seen previous interceptions that happened in the Area of the Galápagos Islands which are Ecuadorian territory.

Other video on Youtube indicates a destroyer may also have been involved in the operation.

How the vessel was sunk is not indicated in the news release, but the video suggests that it was machine-gun fire rather than something like a Hellfire.

Aug. 28, 2026

Below is an Austal news release. This is the third of up to eleven Offshore Patrol Cutters to be built by Austal under the current contract.

Construction began on the first, the future USCGC Pickering (WMSM-919), on 29 August 2024. Keel was laid December 8, 2025. Delivery is expected in 2027.

Austal USA began construction of the future USCGC Icarus (WMSM-920) August 5, 2025.

The first three ships were to be delivered one per year. The remaining ships are to be delivered two per year.

Something has happened here that you may have missed. Ingham was to have been the third Eastern built OPC. The transfer of the name to Austal’s third ship is additional confirmation that Eastern’s #3 and #4 OPC will never be built.

I have seen no new contracts to complete USCGC Argus and Chase since the June 2026 cancellation of Eastern’s contract.

August 27, 2026

Mobile, Ala. – Austal USA has started construction on its third U.S. Coast Guard Heritage-class Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC), the future USCGC Ingham, at the company’s Mobile, Ala. ship manufacturing facility. Ingham is being built under a contract that includes options for up to 11 cutters and has a current potential value of $3.3 billion.

“Each new OPC moving into production demonstrates how far our steel shipbuilding team has come,” Austal USA President Gene Miller said. “Ingham will give the Coast Guard the endurance, flexibility and offshore capability it needs to protect our nation’s maritime interests. We are committed to building a strong, serial production program for this important class of cutters.”

Austal USA uses a modular construction approach designed to increase production efficiency and allow a high percentage of each module to be outfitted before final assembly. The company’s engineering and production teams also developed a detailed 3D model of the cutter early in the design process to support planning, coordination and construction.

The OPC program will recapitalize the Coast Guard’s aging medium endurance cutter fleet and provide a capability bridge between the service’s national security cutters, which operate in the open ocean, and fast response cutters, which operate closer to shore.

The 360-foot OPC will provide the majority of the Coast Guard’s offshore presence, conducting missions including law enforcement, drug and migrant interdiction, and search and rescue. With a range of 10,200 nautical miles at 14 knots and a 60-day endurance period, each OPC will be capable of deploying independently or as part of a task group and serving as a mobile command-and-control platform for surge operations such as hurricane response and mass migration incidents. The cutters will also support Arctic objectives by helping regulate and protect emerging commerce and energy exploration in Alaska.

With the start of Ingham, Austal USA has three OPCs under construction: the future USCGC Pickering, USCGC Icarus, and USCGC Ingham. Together, these cutters anchor Austal USA’s growing steel shipbuilding portfolio, which also currently includes construction of four Landing Craft Utility vessels, three Navajo-class Towing, Salvage and Rescue Ships, an Auxiliary Floating Dry Dock Medium, and submarine modules supporting the Virginia- and Columbia-class submarine programs.

SARWET origin of rescue swimmer

Great story about how a great idea from the ranks got delayed and almost lost.

Don’t miss it. Great lessons could be learned from this.

SeaVision

I have long felt the Coast Guard should be a partner in a Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) program along with the Navy. AMVER is really a sort of MDA, but includes only those that want to be included. It could be an input to a more complete system.

I was surprised to find that DOT already maintains, SeaVision, an unclassified MDA system in partnership with US Fleet Forces Command, Naval Information Warfare System Pacific, and Battlespace Awareness and Information Operations (PMW120) (the SeaVision Team). The Coast Guard is notably absent though I have to believe the Coast Guard is providing information.

Reportedly SeaVision has over 5,000 active users from 120 partner nations.

Below are screen grabs of its claimed features and data.

Vermilion Parish

Marine Log reports,

“SpaceX said August 25 that it plans to invest $100 billion in a massive new launch facility on Louisiana’s Gulf Coast, a development that could bring a new type of industrial activity to the state’s working coast and eventually require coordination between space operations and marine traffic in the Gulf.

“The company plans to develop the 125,000-acre site in Vermilion Parish as its fourth and largest launch facility, with the capacity to support thousands of launches annually. (emphasis applied–Chuck) Construction is expected to begin in 2027, with the first launch targeted for as early as 2029.

This might be important.

The report notes, “…barge transportation has also been identified as one of the logistical advantages of the location…The U.S. Coast Guard already works with the Federal Aviation Administration, NASA and commercial space operators, including SpaceX, to address risks that launch operations can pose to vessels and navigable waters. Depending on the location and trajectory of a launch, those measures can include temporary safety or restricted areas and notices advising mariners of potential hazards.”

When I first heard about this, I was worried that it might impact traffic on the Mississippi, but looks like that is unlikely given the geography.

Will the Coast Guard need to provide waterside security? If so the nearest WPCs are based in Galveston, TX and Pascagoula, Mississippi. The Navy League 2026 Almanac tells me USCGC Yellowfin (WPB-87319) is in Abbevile, LA. That is within the Parish.

Vermilion Parish:  The parish seat is Abbeville. Vermilion Parish is part of the Lafayette metropolitan statistical area, and located in southern Acadiana. At the 2020 U.S. census, the population was 57,359.

Davie/Helsinki Arctic Security Cutter ASC. Click on the photo to enlarge. 

Sixty Degrees North provides an excellent review of the Davie/Helsinki Shipyard version of the Arctic Security Cutter design, including a history of the previous ships that provided the basis of the design.

The post includes some details I had not previously seen.

The ships will be provided with a SCIF, “Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility.”

It also appears, from the graphic, they will have a multi-mode radar.

Armament will reportedly include a 25mm Mk38 (upgradable to 57mm) and 4 x M2 .50cal mounts/remote weapons stations. The mention of remote weapon stations (RWS) is encouraging. Requiring a crew to stand out in the open in the Arctic for long periods of time is probably not conducive to readiness. Plus the electro-optics on the RWS can be very useful for various missions. Still I would hope the main gun would have been a 30 X 173mm Bushmaster II Mk38 Mod 4 currently planned for the Polar Security Cutter. The Secondary armament for all large cutters should include something like the RWS used for the Army’s M-SHORAD that includes a 30 X 113mm M230 chain gun and short range missiles like Stinger, APKWS, Hellfire, or JAGM. Both versions of the 30mm offer air burst munitions while the 25mm does not. This would give the ships at least some protection against surface craft, drones, low flying aircraft, glide bombs, and cruise missiles. Replacing the Mk38 with a third such RWS in addition to two near the rear corners of the superstructure would provide good all round protection while simplifying training and logistics.

There was a suggestion that the Moon Pool might be used for ASW even in the ice.

“The design’s ‘standard’ moon pool intrigues me, as one criticism of armed icebreakers is that they cannot conduct Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) because icebreaking is so loud as to make SONAR systems useless. Absent the capability to detect and counter submarines, icebreakers will not survive long in combat. Deploying ASW UUVs (or even ROVs) via a moon pool may challenge that criticism in the future.”

The most surprising thing was the suggestion that these ships could host Mk70 containerized missile launch systems, providing the equivalent 16 Mk41 Vertical Launch Systems. (See the rendering below.) This seems like an answer to the similar sized Russian Project 23550 icebreaker which when first revealed the model of the ship had two containerized CLUB-K missile systems on the stern, but in fact we have not yet seen any icebreaker equipped this way. Basically any ship that has room for containers in an open area can do this, including putting them on the flight deck.

Rendering of the MPPS ASC version showing four MK70 launchers (16 VLS cells) and a cargo handling crane. (Image: Davie Defense)

USCGC Pablo Valent (WPC-1148), the only WPC currently based in St. Petersburg. There are also two WMEC210s based in St. Petersburg, Resolute and Venturous.

Below is a Headquarters news release. St. Petersburg is a bit unusual as a Webber class WPC base in that it only has one WPC while in most places three or more cutters are based together, to provide near 365 day/year readiness.

District SE already has 20 WPCs but only one is on the Gulf side of the Peninsula, the other 19 are based in Miami, Key West, and San Juan, PR.

We will almost certainly see two more added. Will the additional WPCs replace the two WMEC210s or will they be replaced by OPCs based at St. Pete?

Below is a post from MyCG. On the MyCG website it says,

“What you can do now to help make the new site better”

Obviously, I was interested. I thought maybe I would ask my readers to offer feedback. This is supposed to be a public-facing website, and we are the public, whereas most readers of MyCG are internal to the organization.

But looking down at “What should members do?” the only thing I see in terms of making the site better is, “Participate when asked.  Your feedback will directly influence the final website and contribute to ongoing improvements post-launch.”

Currently there are a lot of public-facing website such as news by region and many that are directed primarily to service members but accessible to the public like the district websites. CG-9 has a web site. Individual ships and other units have websites and Facebook pages.

I have also seen a need to improve Coast Guard websites and keep them up to date. What I see in this notice also seems to be an attempt to restrict what is said. I have not seen a problem with what has been made public, but this is what it says:

• “…making content management…more consistent for all audiences.
• “…fragmentation makes it harder…to keep information…compliant.
• “Every decision in the process is guided by leadership…
• “Present a…more consistent Coast Guard brand to the public
• “All content will use approved templates, standardized tags…
• “Present a…more consistent Coast Guard brand to the public
• “Stronger governance and brand alignment
• CG-OPA will manage the content approval process for adding or changing public web content. This ensures updates are…aligned with Coast Guard priorities. A dedicated Brand Team will also formalize visual identity, tone, and voice standards.

I can see a single site to pass along information on Coast Guard units, their location and characteristics and to provide information on history, budget requests and status, contracting and other questions of national importance to the general public, but I hope the Coast Guard will not limit public access to just this one website. Multiple websites exist because they address different audiences. A top down requirement for approval will delay distribution and limit response to local news agencies.

CG-OPA should also be making sure unofficial outlets have correct and up to date information. This seems to be being done. Wikipedia and the Navy League’s Seapower Almanac frequently seem to be more up to date than Coast Guard websites.

Nevertheless, as a user of public information sites, the Coast Guard does a great job, much better than the Navy. I believe that is because we have done, what the Coast Guard has always done, pushed decision making down to the local level.

That is not to say HQ should not be checking on what they do.

JORN, a network of three over-the-horizon radar facilities, is a strategic and early-warning asset for Australia. Canada is buying a similar system. (Australian Defence Force)

Defense News reports,

“CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand — The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), operated by Canada and the United States, has gaping holes in its airspace radar coverage. Ottawa went some way to filling those gaps when it signed four related agreements in June for a new radar system sourced from Australia.

“The system is called the Arctic Over-The-Horizon Radar (A-OTHR), and the deal is worth some US$1.75 billion to Australia.

Not mentioned is the fact that these systems can detect surface targets as well air targets. New Over the Horizon radars will be an important element in Arctic Maritime Domain Awareness.

More info here: “Australia, Canada formalize Arctic over-the-horizon radar deal” –The Watch.