SLNS Vijayabahu (P627), the former USCGC Douglas Munro, on the scene of a capsized Chinese Fishing Vessel. Sri Lanka Navy photo.
Marine Link has the report. Tragic, but I would not normally posted concerning this case, but then I saw the accompanying photo and video which included the former USCGC Munro still doing SAR.
USCGC Mellon seen here launching a Harpoon anti-ship cruise missile in 1990.
After a long period in which she was expected to be transferred to Bahrain, the former USCGC Mellon is now expected to join two of her sisters in service with the Vietnam Coast Guard.
To recap, the twelve Hamilton class cutters, all over 51 years old, are now in service with five nations.
More info including new names here.
Thanks to Mark R. C. for bringing this to my attention.
BRP Ramon Alcaraz (former USCGC Dallas) equipped with new Sea Giraffe multi-mode radar in Cebu.
NavyRecognition reports, “China Coast Guard try to intercept Philippine Navy’s BRP Andres Bonifacio.” We talked about this incident earlier, but this report also includes information about the upgrades to the former US Coast Guard cutter. We did talk about upgrades earlier, but this has more specifics, particularly in regard to the sonar. All three of the Philippines’ former cutters are being upgraded.
The OPV is equipped with various sensors and processing systems, including the Naval Shield Baseline 2 Integrated Combat Management System, a Saab AB AN/SPS-77 Sea Giraffe AMB 3D air/surface search radar, a Furuno FAR3220BB 25KW X-band navigational radar, a Sperry Mk 92 Mod 1 Fire Control System, and an ELAC Hunter 2.0 hull-mounted sonar.
BRP Andres Bonifacio is armed with a Mk 75 Oto Melara 76mm Compact gun, two Mk 38 25mm autocannons, six M2HB Browning .50 caliber guns, and two USN-Mark 36 SRBOC (Super Rapid Blooming Offboard Countermeasures) mortar-type launching systems.
The combat management system, AN/SPS-77, sonar, and 25mm Mk38 Mod2/3s are all upgrades since the hand-over. I also found some additional information, that also mentioned Radar Electronic Support Measure (R-ESM), a new Identification Friend or Foe (IFF), and the SeaFLIR 230 electro-optical/infra-red (EO/IR) system.
The AN/SPS-77 is also used on Independence class LCS and will equip the US Coast Guard Offshore Patrol Cutter.
The sonar is by a German company and offers mine avoidance and torpedo detection as well as passive and active submarine and UUV detection capabilities. We don’t know which of the various sized transducers associated with this system was chosen. Transducers of 4 kHz to 30 kHz are available that span the range from low frequency long range systems to relatively short ranged high frequency systems. A medium frequency seems most likely.
Some of these upgrades, particularly the multimode radar, support helicopter operations. The Philippine Navy currently has two AW159 Wildcat helicopters with significant ASW and anti-surface capability. So far these are the only Philippine aircraft with an ASW capability and they may be based on other Philippine Navy warships.
The upgrades were done in South Korea. The Philippine military seems to have developed a relationship with South Korea. The Philippine Navy has purchased two 2600 ton light frigates from S. Korea and has contracts out for two 3200 ton corvettes and six 2400 ton 94.4 meter Offshore Patrol Vessels.
The three Philippine ships are probably now the best equipped of the 12 former US Coast Guard 378s currently serving in five different navies and coast guards, but there are still some desirable possible additions, including anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM), close in weapon systems (CIWS), light weight ASW torpedoes, and towed array sonars.
USS Anchorage seen from Sri Lanka’s SLNS Gajabahu. CARAT 2023
“Taking part in the sea phase of Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) exercise 2023, SLNS Gajabahu and SLNS Samudura of the Sri Lanka Navy and ‘USS Anchorage’ of the U.S. Navy successfully conducted a series of naval exercises off Negombo on 22nd and 23rd January 2023.”
I had to point this out because both Sri Lankan ships mentioned are former US Coast Guard Cutters. SLNS Samudura is the former USCGC Courageous (WMEC-622) transferred to Sri Lanka in 2004 and SLNS Gajabahu is the former USCGC Sherman (WHEC-720) transferred to Sri Lanka in 2018.
Former USCGC Courageous, now SLNS Samudura P621. Photo by Rehman Abubakr
SLNS Gajabahu (P626), SLNS Sayurala (P623) and SLNS Sindurala (P624) during 2022 Colombo Naval Exercise. SLNS Samudura (P261) also visible in the distance. Photo defence.lk
Seawaves reports on the delivery voyage of the former USCGC Douglas Munro on its way to Sri Lanka. As in previous cases you can see that the air-search radar, Phalanx CIWS, and 25mm guns have been removed while the 76mm Mk75 gun and Mk92 fire control system remain.
As reported by Wikipedia, this is the 11th of the 12 ships of the class to be handed over to a foreign navy or coast guard. In most cases, they are the largest units in their new parent organization. Using their former names, their distribution is as follows:
The only one of the class that remains is Mellon which is expected to go to Bahrain.
Sri Lanka has also been operating the former 210 foot, Medium Endurance Cutter USCGC Courageous since 2005.
BRP Ramon Alcaraz sporting her new Sea Giraffe radar in Cebu.
When the US Coast Guard Hamilton class 378 foot WHECs were decommissioned and transferred to other nations, the AN/SPS-40 air search radars were removed, along with the Phalanx close in weapon system. At least one of the three former cutters, in service with the Philippine Navy, has been upgraded with the addition of a Sea Giraffe multi-mode radar and a pair of 25mm Mk38 guns as can be seen on these photos of BRP Ramon Alcaraz (former USCGC Dallas). There were plans to acquire at least two Sea Giraffe radars. I can’t say how far they have gotten.
The Sea Giraffe, USN designation AN/SPS-77, is the radar that will equip the Argus class OPCs. It is also currently installed on Independence class LCS.
I found these on Facebook, but apparently they came from Daryll Evan Mancao’ Flickr page.
BRP Ramon Alcaraz (former USCGC Dallas) equipped with new Sea Giraffe multi-mode radar in Cebu.
The Vietnam Coast Guard patrol vessel CSB-8020, formerly the US Coast Guard cutter Morgenthau (Photo: Vietnam Coast Guard)
A routine report of contract award, “Fairbanks Morse to Supply Engine Parts for USCG Icebreaking Tugs,” but there is note that indicates the Coast Guard wants to make sure those now 50 to 55 year old former cutters stay operational.
“The contract also includes provisions for engine parts onboard the USCG’s decommissioned high endurance cutters (WHECs) that have been transferred or are in the process of being transferred to foreign navies.”
USCGC Douglas Munro (WHEC-724)
The Navy League’s magazine, Seapower, reports that the last of the US Coast Guard’s Hamilton class 378 foot WHECs, Douglas Munro, will be decommissioned at the end of the month.
The designers of these ships certainly made them aesthetically pleasing, and the preliminary design work was done in house by Coast Guard engineers.
The 378s were the crowning achievement of a recapitalization program begun in the late 1950s that resulted in the 82 foot Point class patrol boats, the 210 foot Reliance class WMECs, and ultimately the 378 foot Hamilton class WHECs, all built to preliminary designs developed in house.
Between October 1960 and August 1970 the Coast Guard commissioned 79 Point class WPBs. The Point class followed closely on the heals of the 95 foot WPB, the last of which had been commissioned in July 1959.
Between June 1964 and July 1969 we commissioned 16 Reliance class WMECs. Between February 1967 and March 1972 we commissioned 12 Hamilton class WHECs.
So between Oct. 1960 and March 1972 the Coast Guard commissioned 107 new patrol cutters. In 1967 alone we commissioned 17 Point class WPB. 1968 was the peak year for the larger cutters. In that year the Coast Guard commissioned four 378s and seven 210s. (Makes it clear we should be able to complete more than two Offshore Patrol Cutters per year, doesn’t it?)
USCGC Gallatin WHEC -721 (378), USCGC Rockaway WHEC-377 (311), and USCGC Spencer WHEC-36 (327)
When the 378s were built, the WHEC designation had just recently been coined. 36 ships were classed as WHECs, six 327 foot 2,656 ton full load Secretary class cutters, 18 Casco class 311 foot 2,529 ton cutters, and 12 Owasco class 255 foot 1,978 ton cutters. The plan was to build 36 of Hamilton class to replace all of them, but the termination of the Ocean Station program resulted in only twelve being built. The 378s were 15 to 54% larger than the ships they replaced at 3,050 tons full load, and they were a much more advanced design.
CODOG Propulsion:
The COmbined Diesel or Gas turbine (CODOG) propulsion was a bold choice in the early 1960s. The Royal Navy had commissioned their first combatants with gas turbines (combined with steam) in 1961 The US Navy would not complete their first gas turbine powered Perry class frigate until 1977. (I think you can see the influence of the Hamilton class in the design of the Perry class frigates.) A pair of Danish Frigates, the Peder Skram class, would also use the same FT-4 turbines, but the first of that class was laid down only four months before Hamilton, so it was more contemporary than predecessor. 49 months after Hamilton was laid down, the Canadian laid down the first of the Iroquois class destroyers that used more powerful versions of the FT-4 in a COGOG arrangement with smaller 7500 HP Allison gas turbines. We would see the FT-4 gas turbine again in the Polar class icebreakers beginning in 1976.
The Coast Guard had done some experimentation with gas turbines. As built, USCGC Point Thatcher (WPB-82314), commissioned in Sept. 1961, was equipped with controllable pitch props and two 1000 HP gas turbines (later replaced by two 800 HP diesels that would became standard in the class). The first five 210 foot cutters of the Reliance class, commissioned June 1964 to February 1966, had two 1,000 HP gas turbines in addition to two 1,500 HP diesels, that they retained until they received major renovations 1985-1990.
The Hamilton Class’s Navy contemporaries were the 3,371 ton full load Garcia and 4,066 ton Knox class frigates (classified as Destroyer Escorts until 1975). Those ships were larger and used high temperature and pressure steam propulsion to produce 35,000 HP (compared to 36,000 for the 378s on their turbines). The frigates used only a single shaft for a speed 27 knots. The Hamiltons’ turbines gave them a two knot speed advantage, while their diesels gave them more than double the range. Two shafts gave them a greater degree of redundancy.
ASW Capability:
While the contemporary Garcia and Knox class were much better equipped for ASW, the newly commissioned 378s, with their AN/SQS-38 sonar and helicopter deck were not only larger and faster, but also compared favorably as ASW ships to all but the newest Navy Destroyer Escorts (those completed 1963 and later).
CGC DALLAS (WHEC-716)… Vietnam… During seven combat patrols off the coast of Vietnam, Dallas undertook 161 gunfire support missions involving 7,665 rounds of her 5-inch ammunition. This resulted in 58 sampans destroyed and 29 Viet Cong supply routes, bases, camps, or rest areas damaged or destroyed. Her 5-inch (127 mm) guns made her very valuable to the naval missions in the area. Original 35mm Slide shared by Capt W.F. Guy, USCG… Circa May 1970.
Electronic Warfare, Gun and Fire Control:
The 378s introduced the post WWII Coast Guard to electronic warfare with the WLR-1.
Unlike the earlier WHECs, the 378s were completed with the Mk56 gun firecontrol system which was much more capable than the short to medium range Mk52 used by the older cutters. Their 5″/38s proved useful when deployed to Vietnam. Below is quoted from Wikipedia’s description of USCGC Morgenthau‘s Vietnam deployment.
From records compiled by then-Lieutenant Eugene N. Tulich, Commander, US Coast Guard (Ret), Morgenthau‘s Vietnam numbers included: Miles cruised – 38,029 nautical miles (70,430 km; 43,763 mi); Percentage time underway – 72.8%; Junks/sampans detected/inspected/boarded – 2383/627/63; Enemy confirmed killed in action (KIA) 14; Structures destroyed/damaged – 32/37; Bunkers destroyed/damaged – 12/3; Waterborne craft destroyed/damaged – 7/3; Naval Gunfire Support Missions (NGFS) – 19; MEDCAPS (Medical Civic Action Program) – 25; Patients treated – 2676.
The FRAM:
During the late 1980s the Reagan administration was pushing for a 600 ship Navy. The FRAM of the Hamilton class was one of the small ways the Coast Guard played a part in the competition that may have driven the Soviet Union into dissolution.
While the 378s would still might not have been first class fighting units, electronic warfare was brought up to date, a newer air search radar, a modern gun, and firecontrol was installed. Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles were add along with a Close in Weapon System (CIWS), a hangar was added and the ships were equipped to operate with a LAMPs I ASW helicopters.
Ultimately, following the collapse of the threat from the Soviet Union, the ASW equipment and anti-ship cruise missile were removed, but benefits of modernization, remained.
The After Life:
These ships are now 49 to 54 years old and, thanks to the hard work of their crews over a half century, they are still doing good work, no longer for the US Coast Guard, but for Navies and Coast Guards around the world. Virtually all of their contemporaries have gone to the ship breakers, as have many younger ships.
BRP Andrés Bonifacio (FF-17), the former USCGC Boutwell.
The Vietnam Coast Guard patrol vessel CSB-8020, formerly the US Coast Guard cutter Morgenthau (Photo: Vietnam Coast Guard)
The crew of the Coast Guard Cutter Bruckenthal participates in a fueling exercise with the Coast Guard Cutter Campbell on the Chesapeake Bay, April 11, 2020. The Coast Guard acquired the first Sentinel Class cutter in 2012, with the namesake of each cutter being one of the service’s many enlisted heroes. (U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Isaac Cross)
Forbes evaluates the Coast Guard’s performance and the dangers inherent in its aging fleet.
“With all the new interest, America’s Coast Guard is transitioning from an overlooked national security afterthought into a more significant geopolitical player, befitting what is, after all, the world’s 12th largest naval force.”
But,
“It all looks pretty good so far. America’s Coast Guard can be proud of its current operational record and new strategic potential. But as the geopolitical importance of Coast Guard missions ramp up, so too will the ramifications of mission failure. The Coast Guard has a lot of fragile ships that can break at any time. The stress may already be showing…”
There is a lot of criticism of the 270 foot WMECs here. I have never been a great fan. When they were being built, the Chief Engineer made keeping the cost down a number one priority. He saw cost closely related to length. Contrary to stories that they were supposed to have been longer, in fact the original design was three feet shorter. I heard at the time, that Naval engineers went “down on bended knees” to get an additional three feet of shear on the bow.
USCGC Citrus, 1984, after conversion from buoy tender to WMEC. US Coast Guard photo.
When the 270 program began, the Coast Guard still had 18 World War II vintage WHECs and WMECs
Twelve of those, including all the 327s, were decommissioned 1980 to 1991. Tamaroa and Citrus were decommissioned in 1994, Escape in 1995, Yacona in 1996, Storis in 2007, and Acushnet hung on until 2011.
210s Courageous and Durable were decommissioned September 2001.
Until the first National Security Cutter, Bertholf, was commissioned Aug. 4, 2008, the only addition to the fleet, after the completion of the 270s, was 283′ Alex Haley, transferred from the Navy in 1999.
So at the end of 1991, the year the last 270 was delivered, we had 47 WHECs and WMECs (12 x 378s, 13 x 270s, 16 x 210s and 6 WWII vintage ships). By the time the first NSC came out, we were down to 41 (12 x 378s, 1 x283, 13 x 270s, 14 x 210s and 1 WWII vintage ship). We are currently at 37 (8 x NSCs, 1 x 378s, 1 x283, 13 x 270s, 14 x 210s) and working toward 36 (11 NSCs and 25 OPCs). I suspect we will the the number drop below that before the OPC program is complete.
USCGC Tahoma (WMEC-908)
While I always felt we would have been better off evolving an improved 327, the 270 was a net improvement. Unlike the ships they replaced, they had a helicopter deck and hangar. Even the 378s did not have a hangar at that point. The 270s introduced the digital Mk92 fire control, 76mm Mk75 gun, SLQ-32 ESM, and Mk36 SRBOC. They were a half knot slower than the 327s, but were substantially faster than the other ships they replaced, none of which were capable of more than 16 knots.
It was perhaps a lost opportunity to build something better, for only a little more money, but they were an improvement. We should have built at least six more to replace the WWII built ships, and maybe another 16 to replace the 210s beginning in 1994 (perhaps a block 2 with a bit more bow). We should have awarded contracts to start replacing the 270s more than a decade ago.
Now that we do have bipartisan support in Congress, we need to translate that into consistently larger Procurement, Construction, and Improvement funding and an accelerated build rate for the OPCs. After all, we currently have only one WMEC less than 30 years old, that just barely. We really should not wait 17 or 18 years to replace them all.
This is the second part of a reexamination of where critical ports are in the US and where the cutters that might be needed to protect them are homeported.
Consolidated Target and Homeport List:
I have reproduced this listing from part 1. It has been changed slightly to reflect the move of USCGC Seneca from Boston to Portsmouth, VA. Again, we have 31 target ports or port complexes in bold and 23 current or planned cutter homeports with the cutters in bold. In many cases a critical port is also a homeport for cutter(s).
CCGD1:
CCGD5:
CCGD7:
CCGD8
CCGD11:
CCGD13:
CCGD14:
CCGD17:
The Present and Future Coast Guard Fleet:
Bertholf class National Security Cutters:
These ships are only based in three ports, all three of these are potential target ports.
That might suggest that these ports are well protected, but as I have said, these ships don’t spend any time on standby, and when they are in port they are usually down hard.
Honolulu is also a Naval bases and has three Webber class WPCs assigned, so it is about as well protected as any port could be with our current equipment.
The Webber class WPCs:
As I have noted, currently the Webber class are potentially the most important asset for port protection.
Of the 31 potential target ports, these nine have, or we know will have, two or more Webber class cutters assigned.
With four additional FRCs going to Alaska, I have to assume Anchorage, AK will be protected. Its geography protects it to a great extent. It is far up Cook Inlet. Kodiak’s position South of Cook Inlet pushes the US EEZ out, so it is much further than 200 miles from the edge of the EEZ to Anchorage. Homer, at the mouth of Cook Inlet, has been an Island class WPB in the past and may be a Webber class homeport in the future.
These seven potential target ports have, or we know will have, two or more Webber class cutters homeported within 100 nautical miles, offering some degree of protection.
The following 14 potential target ports have no Webber class WPCs assigned or currently planned to be based within 100 nautical miles:
Most likely future Webber Class Homeports: 47 of the planned 64 Webber class cutters have already been paired with their homeports as noted above (including six to go to Bahrain). Of the 17 remaining we know two will go to Astoria OR, and four will go to Alaska. That leaves eleven to potentially protect other ports. Grouped two or three to a port, that means we will have no more than four or five additional Webber class homeports. In my view, the most likely additional ports are:
Where we are naked: Potential target ports that likely will not have a Webber class within 100 nmiles:
The Hudson River Complex is protected to some extent by geography, given the length of its approaches. WPCs at Cape May and New London would provide a degree of protection though both are a bit more than 100 nmi away.
The strong Navy presence in the Chesapeake Bay Complex, VA should provide a degree of protection.
7th District has 8 of the 31 critical ports and 19 of the 58 Webber class homeported in the US (I understand they will get a 20th), but all are in three ports, Miami, San Juan, and Key West, which is not a critical port. Five ports have no Webber class within 100 nautical miles.
There are of course other considerations, but from the perspective of protecting ports we would be much better off redistributing all but three WPCs in Miami and three in San Juan to Charleston (which would also provide a degree of protection for Savannah), Jacksonville, Port Canaveral, and Tampa/St Pete. This would leave Key West without WPCs, but it does look like a good place for OPCs.
We would also have no Webber class within 100 miles of the Mississippi River Complex.
Fortunately it is protected to some extent by the long and relatively difficult passage up the Mississippi River before these ports can be reached. You are not likely to make it up the Mississippi with a ship without getting a pilot. Also Webber class at Pascagoula are only a little over 100 nautical miles from the mouth of the Mississippi.
HECs and MECs and OPCs, Oh My:
There are currently 29 WHECs/WMECs. They are to be replaced by 25 Offshore Patrol Cutters (OPCs). Because of the nature of their operations and scheduling, they are unlikely to respond to a threat from their homeport, but they may be employed locally off shore for fisheries, drug, or Alien Migrant enforcement. Where will they be based?
We could say 25 ships divided among eight districts means three ships in seven districts and four in one. That might not be a bad way to start, but in all likelihood the OPCs will be distributed much as the one remaining WHEC and 28 WMECs are now, but some changes are likely because of tendencies observed of late.
Breaking it down by district even though they are Area assets, I will note how many in the district and what percentage of the current WHEC/WMEC fleet that constitutes.
CCGD1: 4 or 13.8%
CCGD5: 9 or 31%
CCGD7: 7 or 24.1%
CCGD8: 4 or 13.8%
CCGD13: 3 or 10.3%
CCGD17: 2 or 6.9%
If we distributed the 25 OPCs in the same proportion we would have:
But we already know that two OPCs will be based in San Pedro, they probably represent a movement Southward from D13, and there is a good possibility they will be joined by a third OPC.
In the same vain I think we will see one or two fewer OPCs in D5. They might go to D7, but there is also a possibility they could go to PAC Area.
This is what I think we will ultimately see, with destination of three OPCs much less certain. Possible locations for these three are in parenthesis. It is going to be a very long time (Late 2030s) before we see the last three, so much can change.
Historically the Coast Guard has based two thirds of its large cutters in Atlantic Area and one third in the Pacific Area. If that were to be the case, PAC Area should get six OPCs in addition to the six NSCs they have now, and LANT Area should have 19 OPCs in addition to the five NSCs currently planned.
If you look at the distribution of the US EEZ, I think there is a strong case for more ships in the Pacific.
With the increased emphasis on IUU and capacity building in the Western Pacific, we may see up to eight OPCs going to PAC AREA.
Alternative Mission Set:
PAC Area has been very aggressive in the use of their resources for drug interdiction, sending FRCs down to the Eastern Pacific transit zones off Central and South America, but PAC AREA could have more cutter time for operations in the Western Pacific, without adding cutters, if LANT AREA took full responsibility for the Eastern Pacific drug interdiction effort. There are good reasons, that might be desirable.
US Navy Fleet Organization
The Missing Class–Response Boat, Large–the WPB replacement:
All along, I have been saying our cutter are not adequately armed to have a high probability of being able to stop a terrorist controlled vessel. Currently the Webber class WPCs seem to be the most likely craft to be in a position to take on that role, but in many scenarios they simply would not be up to the task. In addition we know that about half the critical ports or port complexes will have no Webber class homeported there so that they might respond most rapidly in the case of an attack.
We still need to replace the 87 foot Marine Protector class WPBs. As we have discussed here and here, properly equipped, a vessel half the size of the Webber class could take on this job.
There were 74 Marine Protector class built. Wikipedia indicates there are 73 currently active and we know there is a proposal to decommission eight in the belief that their missions will be performed by Webber class and response boat, mediums. That would still leave 65.
Assuming we put two WPB replacements in position to protect each of the 31 critical ports, so that we could always have one either on standby or underway near by, it would only require 62. It the Webber class were better armed, and we only needed to protect those critical ports with no Webber class homported there, we would need no more than 34. If we also redistributed the D7 Webber class as suggested we would need only 26.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 