Screen Grab

You can’t use the selections above. If you want to know more go here.

Five aircraft carriers and six big deck ampibs at Norfolk Naval Station

I will, for the moment step outside my accustomed role as a retired Coast Guard curmudgeon, and comment on the National Naval Strategy. Please forgive me, but this is the most “bully pulpit” I have. I got to thinking about this when the discussion of the Panama Canal noted that USN carriers cannot use the Canal and would take a very long time to join any naval conflict with China.

There is no longer any tactical or strategic reason that deployment of the US Fleet should be split 50/50 between the Atlantic and Pacific. 

Russia is a fading shadow of the former Soviet Union with a smaller GDP than Canada. Our Atlantic Sea lines of communication are essentially secure. Russia is by no means ready to take on all of NATO, They can barely handle Ukraine.

China on the other hand is increasingly aggressive. Their rapidly growing fleet enjoys a home field advantage in the Western Pacific, particularly while half our fleet is based in the Atlantic.

Most of our ships and all of our aircraft carriers should be based in the Pacific.

In Europe, we have plenty of land bases we can operate aircraft from. Nevertheless, Britain, France, and Italy should be encouraged to coordinate their carrier deployments so that one of them is always immediately available

Big deck amphibious ships like LHAs operating F-35Bs and MH-60R ASW helicopters can fill in for what little carrier aviation we need in the Atlantic and Mediterranean.

In the Pacific we have few permanent air bases close to where conflict is likely. Carrier based aircraft can be the difference between victory and disaster.

The situation is starting to look much like World War II, when virtually all US fast carriers were assigned to the Pacific Fleet

Right now we operate aircraft carriers singly, even in the Western Pacific. Singly an aircraft carrier can barely defend itself against Chinese anti-access systems, much less go on the offensive.

Operating aircraft carriers in pairs with augmented escorts gives them a much better chance of both surviving and going on the offensive. One can play defense while the other prepares a massive strike.

Ten carriers in the Pacific would mean we could have a ready pair in the Western Pacific at all times. They and their larger destroyer squadron could even work up together before deployment.

The current distribution of shipyards capable of doing maintenance on aircraft carriers may suggest basing all US aircraft carriers in the Pacific may be impossible. It might be necessary to open a new shipyard. Vallejo might be an option. A fourth USN Pacific operating base on US soil could be advantageous. If a new shipyard is developed in the Pacific, if it were government owned and operated it could speed emergency repairs, avoiding the delays of contract negotiations.

The “What’s Going On With Shipping” podcast is not normally about the Coast Guard but it is about the Marine Transportation System with which the Coast Guard is intimately intertwined so inevitably the Coast Guard will be mentioned from time to time.

A regular reader wanted to share this video. This was his comment.

I did not know where to put this, so I found one of the stories about the 140′ Ice Breaking Tugs in the Great Lakes

Below is a YouTube link of the USCGC Katmai Bay breaking ice up in Sault Ste. Marie as it was escorting a tanker.

Beautiful close up shots of her after the 20min mark, and you can clearly see her bubbler system working as she slices through the ice.

Just wanted to share this, as these 140’s are a unique asset in the Great Lakes – Very well made ships that still look strong (where’s the 140′ Replacement Program Congress!!).

Are we not allowed to post YouTube Links?? In not, please go search on YouTube for: “USCGC Katmai Bay making a path through the ice for Algonova going to the Soo on Jan 31st, 2025”

So I am passing it along.

My previous post included a discussion about the US interests in the Panama Canal and the President’s stated aim of retaking the canal. The discussion suggested that talk of a complete takeover might be a negotiating tactic. In any case it suggests that US forces may make a return to the Canal Zone.

This could be significant for the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard might replicate PATFORSWA with a squadron of Webber Class WPCs that would be very useful in interdicting drug traffic in the Eastern Pacific Transit Zone–PATFORCENTAM.

A Coast Guard base and support center, hosting perhaps a reinforced company of Marines, tasked with doing training in Central America, might be enough to satisfy US concerns about the security of the canal.

A Coast Guard base would also probably be more welcomed by Panama than a DOD base that would look like an occupying force. After all, both the US and Panama share an interest in maritime law enforcement and the security of the canal.

“What the Ship” is usually interesting, but this episode is more Coast Guard centric than most.

I would say the Coast Guard needs to stop talking about how small it is. The US Coast Guard does not have aircraft carriers or submarines but has more uniformed personnel, more vessels, and more aircraft than either the British or French Navies. The Coast Guard could make a significant contribution to national security if the country made relatively inexpensive additional investments in it.

A Navy briefing slide showing the internal components and describing the various features of the PSU_ARL Common Very Light Weight Torpedo (CVLWT) design

The January 2025 US Naval Institute Proceedings includes an article suggesting the development of “Propulsion Disablers.”

A propulsion disabler (PD) is a small, passive, torpedo-like device that serves as a cheap, non-lethal mine and torpedo warhead. The proposed munition’s purpose is to destroy a ship’s external propulsion or direction-control mechanisms, leaving the vessel stationary. Production of PDs is possible with today’s emerging robotics technologies. Future PD devices could be used in an autonomous swarm that combines the smallest explosive charge with the greatest disabling effect by attacking a ship at its most vulnerable point.

I have been advocating for a propulsion disabler (ship stopper) since at least 2011, since Coast Guard missions imply a requirement to be able to forcibly stop any ship, regardless of size. This article is the first I have seen that suggests the Navy may see a need for a similar weapon.

The Very Light Weight Torpedo pictured above appears to be a likely basis for a propulsion disabler.

One potential scenario where this capability might be required is in the case of an effort to impose a blockade. The linked post discusses this in relationship to a blockade of China.

The propulsion disabler concept first emerged in the search to make a Western blockade strategy affordable and sustainable, and to solve the moral, political, and legal problems involved in a blockade

Another US Naval Institute article explains the problems that might be encountered in the imposition of a blockade,

Legally, deliberately targeting neutral merchants and civilians would be an excellent way to get hauled before the International Court of Justice at the Hague while alienating not only the neutral state but also the home nations of the crew. Ethically, it constitutes a direct attack on civilians. Tactically, attacking and sinking merchantmen would involve the expenditure of an unacceptable number of heavyweight torpedoes or advanced antiship cruise missiles (ASCM) better employed against high-end enemy combatants or troop transports. The economic damage to fisheries caused by the sinking of a single supertanker would devastate coastal nations. Strategically, it could turn neutral-friendly nations into neutral-hostile nations.

The second USNI article makes no mention of Coast Guard assets in the execution of a blockade of China, but that does seem like a likely mission for Coast Guard units and special teams.

Below is a news release from CG News. We knew this was coming. There are only three WPB110s left in the USCG, all in Alaska. Presumably, this will be their last year.

What I found most interesting here was this statement, “… they will operate throughout the 17th Coast Guard District to include the U.S. Arctic, Gulf of Alaska, and Bering Sea.”

We have already seen Alaska based FRCs operating in the Aleutians. The US considers the Bering Sea as part of the Arctic, though it is below the Arctic Circle, so it may not mean they will operate North of the Bering Strait, but that’s what it sounds like.

Earlier story about Captain Witherspoon here.

The crew of U.S. Coast Guard Cutter John Witherspoon (WPC 1158) arrives to their homeport in Kodiak, Alaska, aboard their cutter for the first time, Jan. 28, 2025. (U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Shannon Kearney)