A screenshot from video showing a U.S. military strike on an alleged drug smuggling vessel in the Eastern Pacific. Video released Oct. 22, 2025

gCaptain reports,

“The Trump administration has extended its controversial military campaign against suspected drug-trafficking vessels into the Eastern Pacific, marking a significant expansion beyond operations previously concentrated near Venezuelan waters.”

The new administration has said they will make the Coast Guard a better “fighting force.” I have some suggestions.

Having watched the 9/11 terrorist attacks and having learned how unprepared the Air Force was to deal with such an attack, I became concerned that the Coast Guard is also unprepared to deal with terrorist attacks.

We also should not assume that China will not open hostilities with unconventional attacks on US port facilities that are essential for support of a distant conflict.

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know I feel the Coast Guard is not properly armed to perform its “Ports, Waterways & Coastal Security” and “Defense Readiness” missions and that furthermore there is no other force ready step in and address this shortfall in a timely manner.

The Navy no longer has Naval Districts and associated patrol craft. The Navy has surface ships home-ported in only five ports complexes, Norfolk/Little Creek, Mayport, San Diego, Seattle/Puget Sound, and Pearl Harbor. Not a single Navy surface vessel is home-ported on the East Coast North of Virginia, on the Gulf Coast, or in Alaska. Even where Navy ships are home-ported, how long would it take to get them underway and ready to take defensive action?

The Army no longer has any Coast Defense units. Since 9/11 the Air Force has a few units aircraft ready tor air-to-air combat, but I have never seen any indication they have aircraft and crews on alert, much less air borne ready to respond to a maritime attack.

The war in Ukraine has demonstrated how relatively unsophisticated short range systems can do significant damage and multiple attacks using these systems can be coordinated.

The Coast Guard needs to have weapons that can deal with a range of threats including:

• Unmanned aircraft, from the smallest to converted light planes
• Small, fast, highly maneuverable surface craft including personal watercraft
• Merchant ships of any size

Generally these weapons need to be light, easy to use, and should require minimum maintenance. They should also risk only minimum collateral damage since they may be being used inside an American harbor.

They should be installed on the larger patrol cutters, but they must also be installed on the Webber class cutters, because the Webber class WPCs are both widely distributed and have a large enough crew to provide the necessary security.

I would also like to see them installed on buoy tenders and a replacement class for the 87 foot WPBs that could serve as true fast response cutter for both SAR and defense. Because there are so many assets to protect, the systems must become ubiquitous.

Some thought should be given to how we might arm our Coast Guard aircraft for these missions too. It would not be too difficult to arm H-60s. It has been done.

Over the next few days I am going to talk about some of the weapon systems I think are most appropriate to fill this need: Hellfire/JAGM; APKWS; the Very Light Weight Torpedo; and the 30mm gun with airburst ammunition.

41107-A-BD526-1148 DORAL, Florida (Nov. 7, 2024) Navy Adm. Alvin Holsey, incoming commander of U.S. Southern Command, takes the command guidon from Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III during the SOUTHCOM change-of-command ceremony in Doral, Florida, Nov. 7, 2024. Holsey assumed command from Army Gen. Laura Richardson, who is retiring after 38 years of service. (Photo by Erica Bechard)

Politico, along with several other sources, have reported that Adm. Alvin Holsey, the current Commander, US Southern Command will step down by the end of the year. No replacement has yet been identified.

These reports all seem to suggest that the resignation is due to disagreement with the administration about the lethal attacks on suspected drug smugglers. On the other hand neither Admiral Holsey nor DOD has made no public statement on his reasons for stepping down.

U.S. Coast Guard MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter aircrews conduct overflights of Kipnuk, Alaska, after coastal flooding impacted several western Alaska communities, Oct. 12, 2025. The Coast Guard continues to support the state of Alaska’s response efforts in impacted communities. (U.S. Coast Guard photo courtesy of Air Station Kodiak)

I don’t usually talk about ongoing SAR cases, we have so many, but this is something different and you are not likely to hear about on local or national news.

The nearest Coast Guard air station is on Kodiak Island, roughly 350 miles away.

U.S. Coast Guard MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter aircrews conduct overflights of Kipnuk, Alaska, after coastal flooding impacted several western Alaska communities, Oct. 12, 2025. The Coast Guard continues to support the state of Alaska’s response efforts in impacted communities. (U.S. Coast Guard photo courtesy of Air Station Kodiak)

136 Haitian refugees on the flight deck of the US Coast Guard cutter Harriet Lane

The US Naval Institute has a post that proposes a relatively radical solution to the problems the Coast Guard has had in providing maintenance for our ships.

“The first step to combat rising maintenance costs would involve decommissioning several ships, including the 210-foot Reliance– and 270-foot Famous-class WMECs, the 282-foot USCGC Alex Haley (WMEC-39), 175-foot Keeper-class buoy tenders, and 87-foot Marine Protector-class patrol boats. They should be replaced with significantly more capable ships, such as WMSLs, WPCs, and 225-foot seagoing buoy tenders.”

I don’t think that is going to happen any time soon, for a number of reasons, but in making his case he does a great job in identifying the problem.

“The Coast Guard’s budget for FY24 was $13.4 billion, a figure that severely limits the service’s operational capabilities. Consider that the Coast Guard’s budget in 2014, adjusted for inflation, was $18.5 billion—in real-dollar terms, the budget has fallen by $5.1 billion in a decade.”

If that is the case, there is no way you can maintain a fleet the same size as we had in 2014 whether the ships are new or old. Plus it is going to get worse because with the newer larger ships they will need access to dry docks that are larger and consequently more expensive and fewer in number. Increasingly we will be in competition with the Navy rather than with fishermen.

The author also points to the Coast Guard’s short planning horizon. While the Navy has a 30 year shipbuilding plan, the Coast Guard produces only a 5 year capital investment plan. The author suggests the Coast Guard return to producing a 20 year plan as was prepared for a short period. I have been recommending a 30 year plan for almost as long as I have produced the blog.

While we can’t do it in the short term, the Coast Guard needs a culture change that says we will not operate ships more than 30 years old. As they reach 30 years old, they should be declared excess property and passed to our allies who cannot afford new construction but where labor for repairs is much cheaper than here.

To make this work we have to start the process for planning for replacements when the units are 20 years old because realistically, it is 10 years from “Gee we are going to need a new WXX” to commissioning.

USCGC Bertholf was commissioned in 2008. In three years planning for her replacement should begin. That will require a real change of organizational culture.

I have seen a RFI that indicates planning has begun for the icebreaking 140 and 65 foot tug replacements.

We are probably already behind in planning replacements for the WLBs, WLMs, and WPBs.

Philipine Rajah Sulayman-class offshore patrol vessel

Just to review.

• Fleet the new generation of ships was supposed to replace included 12 WHECs, 32 WMECs, and 49 WPB 110s or 93 ships including 44 large patrol ships.
• The “Program of Record” was to give us 8 NSCs, 25 OPC, and 58 FRCs, a total of 91 ships but only 33 large patrol ships.
• The shortfall in large patrol ship was to be made up by the magic of the “CREW ROTATION CONCEPT,” having four crews for every three ships so we could  keep the ships underway 33% more and 33 ships could do the work of 44.
• The “CREW ROTATION CONCEPT” was killed in the FY2019 budget cycle
• Two addition NSCc and many FRCs have been added, but the current plan is now only 35 large cutters leaving us with far fewer large cutter days. Currently I think we are down to 32 large cutters.
• OPCs are more expensive and require a larger crew than originally projected. They were originally expected to have a crew of about 90 and to cost about half as much as the NSCs.
• Crew size for NSCs has also grown and of course crew size for FRCs are considerably greater than that of the 110 and 87 foot WPCs they are replacing.
• Meanwhile the Coast Guard budget has declined $5.1 billion in a decade in real terms.

Since 2012 I have been advocating for a mid-sized patrol cutter between the 4500 ton OPCs and the 353 ton Webber class that I have called Cutter X. The Philippine Navy is acquiring a new class of six Offshore Patrol Vessels built by South Korean ship builder  Hyundai Heavy Industries. These 2400 ton ships are an example of what can be achieved on that kind of intermediate displacement.

Now I think we have an additional reason for developing a new class. We need a design that is more readily usable as a warship since conflict appears more likely. (In some ways I like the 2600 ton Damen designed Pakistan Navy OPV–faster and better armed.).

These are what I would call prototypical modern OPVs, good examples of the type. They are little more than half the size of NSCs or OPCs, but they are significant improvements over the 210 and 270s. They are large enough to perform typical large patrol cutter peacetime missions, but do it more economically the than an OPC both in terms of initial procurement and operating cost.

One feature I like that sets them apart from most OPVs is the mission bay below the flight deck. This could be used for disaster response equipment, as a holding area for migrants, or for a towed array during war time.

There is a good description of the Philippine OPV and its origin in Wikipedia. Their specs:

As for for characteristic of my more militant Cutter X, I would say:

• Speed at least 24 knots,
• Weapons: 8 cell Mk41 VLS; SeaRAM, two 30mm Mk38 Mod4
• Aviation: H-60 helicopter and spaces to support ASW version including torpedo magazine and sonobuoy stores; additional space for ISR UAS such as V-Bat
• Boats: Peace time normally one Long Range interceptor on stern ramp in the mission bay and two OTH on davits.
• Mission Bay at least large enough for Long Range Interceptor in peacetime and towed array sonar system in wartime.

I am very late on referencing this, but perhaps it might still be of interest. The Coast Guard has published a brief budget fact sheet.

The “Appropriation Summary” compares FY2023 enacted with FY2025 request. The FY2025 request is lower than the FY2023 enacted. Historically the Coast Guard’s enacted budget is larger than the President’s request as bipartisan Congressional supporters tend to add things. It is impossible to compare to FY2024 enacted because no budget was enacted, just continuing resolutions. The Coast Guard also benefitted from the “Big Beautiful Bill” which addressed some costs that had been expected to be addressed in FY2025.

This makes it hard to meaningfully compare the two budgets, but as a retiree I have to ask how the retired pay appropriation could go from $2,044,414 to $1,210,840, a more than 40% drop?

Canadian Coast Guard Multi-Purpose Icebreaker (MPI). Source: Seaspan. This is the ship to be built by the Bollinger/Seaspan/Rauma Marine Constructions (Rauma)/Aker Arctic Team. Two will be built in Finland while four are be built in the US.
Note: The MPI image does not show the right propulsors; it will use Steerprop’s contra-rotating propulsors (CRP). Additionally according to Seaspan, the design could easily be upgraded to PC3. Confirmation from Seaspan and Aker Arctic.

An agreement between President Trump and Finnish President Alexander Stubb seems to have determined the plan for procurement of Coast Guard’s Arctic Security Cutter fleet.

It looks good, but it is not in the budget yet, it includes more ships than studies have shown the Coast Guard needs, and neither design has the propulsion power to be classed as “Medium” icebreaker under the terms the Arctic Security Cutter was previously defined, e.g.. 20,000 to 45,000 shaft HP. Even so I don’t expect any significant push back.

This is the ship to be built by the Davie/Helsinki Shipyard team. Two are to be built in Finland and three in Texas..

The agreement is relatively complex with many parties producing two classes of ships in two countries in four different shipyards. Perhaps the best explanation actually appeared before the official announcement in Peter Rybski’ Sixty Degrees North, “USA-Finland Icebreaker Deal Announcement Expected Today.” There is another very clear report here from Marine Link.

I used information from Sixty Degrees North in the captions of the two illustrations I used.

Last August the US was very active in exercising in the High North. The U.S.S Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group was in the Norwegian Sea. Two of Ford’s escorts broke off and joined two Norwegian frigates in patrolling the Northern Norwegian coast.

Indo-Pacific Command Northern Edge 2025 which included the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group was in the Northern Pacific using the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex.

Most importantly for the Coast Guard, NORTHCOM conducted Arctic Edge 2025 primarily in Alaska and the surrounding seas. In the early days of any conflict involving Alaska (other than just flying over it) Coast Guard ships and aircraft will be a significant part of those forces NORTHCOM can call upon. Coast Guard ships and aircraft can transport personnel, equipment, and supplies including landing small combat units.

A U.S. Coast Guard C-130 participates in forward arming and refueling point (FARP) operations during Arctic Expeditionary Capabilities Exercise (AECE) in Adak, Alaska on Sept. 18, 2019. US Marine Corps Photo

When I saw reports of last year’s Operation Noble Defender Exercise run by NORTHCOM in Alaska, I was very disappointed to see no mention of the Coast Guard. So this year I was very pleased to see this.

A joint Marine Corps/Coast Guard team performed a simulated raid on Port MacKenzie, seizing it and reestablishing force flow through the port. The Army’s 3rd Transportation Brigade (Expeditionary) opened the unimproved port and led transit operations there.

(I do think they made it too easy on themselves by doing it so close to Anchorage but sometimes it’s necessary. Of course they also made it easy on themselves by having the exercise in August.)

There was no specific mention of Coast Guard units participating in the exercise but the exercise extended the entire month of August. The Canadian frigate HMCS Regina was sighted as participating and we know USCGC Waesche operated with HMCS Regina the last week of August including live fire exercises.

The Navy established a temporary advanced base for MH-60S helicopters at Dutch Harbor, August 17-22.

“During the exercise, the squadron collaborated closely with the Air Force, Coast Guard and Naval Aviation Warfighting Development Center personnel recovery experts to coordinate SAR coverage throughout the Aleutian Islands. This ensured smooth integration across commands and enabled HSC-14 to streamline logistics and adapt to Alaska’s unique operational challenges, including extreme weather and limited infrastructure…During the exercise, the squadron collaborated closely with the Air Force, Coast Guard and Naval Aviation Warfighting Development Center personnel recovery experts to coordinate SAR coverage throughout the Aleutian Islands. This ensured smooth integration across commands and enabled HSC-14 to streamline logistics and adapt to Alaska’s unique operational challenges, including extreme weather and limited infrastructure.”

It still looks like the surface Navy may never have gotten North of the Aleutians. That may be because of the way the Combatant Commander boundaries are drawn. NORTHCOM has most but not all of the Bering Sea.

Combatant Command AORs, Bering Sea

It should not be this way. That USEUCOM is responsible for Siberia is insane. Siberia, the Aleutians and the Bering Sea should be under INDOPACOM.

Thought you might like to see this.

As you probably know, I believe the Coast Guard should build a more war-like cutter that could be built jointly with the Navy to fill a destroyer escort like role.