Ship Type Designations–“Combat Fleets of the World,” 16th Edition

Earlier we talked about Ship Designations. I recently received my new US Naval Institute “Combat Fleets or the World,” and found that it had its own set of ship designations (pp. xx-xxii) that generally follow the Navy’s conventions, so I thought I would throw out those that relate to the Coast Guard for comment.

First, they use the “W” prefix to identify ships “..not subordinated to a navy, such as coast guards, customs services, border guards, or government-owned scientific ships.” In fact they used it for the Army’s vessels as well. They also adhere to the use of “A” for all auxiliaries and “Y” for yard or service craft. Here, as in the Navy’s system, “G” (when not used at the end of the designation to indicate guided missile) frequently means miscellaneous.

To illustrate how they classify Coast Guard vessels, I will give the designation they use, its definition (as listed without the “W” prefix), and list the Coast Guard vessel classes that they include in each category.

WPS–Large Patrol Ship “Ships intended for offshore patrol duties and fitted with lesser armament than major combatants, often trading speed for seaworthiness and endurance. In size, they are normally greater than 1,000 tons full load displacement.”

WMSLs (NSC), WMSMs (OPC), 378′ WHECs, and all WMECs

WPC–Coastal Patrol Craft. “Gun and antisubmarine warfare weapon-equipped craft between 100 and 500 tons, not equipped to carry antiship missiles.”

154′ Webber class WPCs, 110′ Island class WPBs

WPB–Patrol Boat. “Any craft of less than 100 tons equipped primarily to carry out patrol duties in relatively sheltered waters, harbors, or rivers.”

87′ Marine Protector class WPBs

WAGB–Ice Breakers (No definition provided)

Mackinaw (WLBB 30), Healy, Polar Class

WAGL–Buoy Tender. “Vessels intended to transport, lay, retrieve, and often repair navigational and mooring buoys.  They usually also have a significant  salvage capability.”

225′ Juniper (WLB 201) class, 175′ Keeper (WLM 551) class

WATA–Ocean Tug. “Auxiliaries configured primarily for oceangoing towing, but usually also capable of secondary rescue, salvage, and firefighting missions.”

140′ Katmai Bay (WTGB 101) class icebreaking tugs

WAXT–Training Ship. “Auxiliaries equipped primarily for the training of cadets and /or enlisted personnel. Also applies to large sail training vessels in naval service.”

Eagle

WYAG–Miscellaneous Service Craft. “Service craft whose function is not covered by other definitions or that has several equally significant functions.”

32′ oil-spill control launches

WYFDM–Medium Floating Dry Dock. “Open-ended floating dry docks with a lift capacity between 5,000 and 20,000 metric tons.”

Floating Dry Dock-Medium (CG Yard) (Oak Ridge, ex-ARDM 1, ex-ARD 19)

WYFL–Launch. Small self-propelled craft for local transportation of personnel.

41′ utility boats, Hurricane RHIBs

WYGL–Small Navigational Aids Tender. “Self propelled service craft intended to service navigational aids, buoys, and other navigational markers, they may or may not be equipped to lay, recover, and service navigational aids buoys.”

Buckthorn (WLI-642), Bayberry 65′ WLIs, Bluebell 100′ WLI, Kankakee 75′ WLRs, Gasconade class 75′ WLRs, Ouachita class 65′ WLRs, Pamlico 160′ WLICs, Anvil class 75′ WLICs, Smilax (WLIC 315), 64′ AtoN boats, 55′ AtoN boats, 49’BUSL AtoN boats, 26′ trailerable AtoN boats, 20′ AtoN boats, 16′ AtoN skiffs

WYH–Ambulance Craft. “Self-propelled local service craft intend for the transport of ill or injured personnel and, in some cases, to provide emergency medical services in remote, sheltered areas.”

47’MLBs, 22′ Multiterrain airboat rescue launches, 42′ Near shore life boats, 52’MLB, 24′ Shallow-water boats, 26′ Motor Surf Boat,

WYTM–Medium Harbor Tug. “Tugs intended primarily for harbor service but capable of limited coastal operations and having a total horsepower between 400 and 1,200 bhp.”

65′ harbor tugs

WYXT–Training Craft. “Smaller, self-propelled craft intended to provide seamanship, navigational, and maneuvering training and generally not intended for sustained seagoing operations.”

38′ Special purpose craft–training boats

While I will stand by my own earlier recommendations, I at least find their system more consistent and understandable than the designations we use now, and it does provide an integrated system including vessels from the largest to the smallest.

There are some questionable calls.

  • WATA may not be the best description for the 140s since it emphasizes towing instead of icebreaking.
  • WYH, “ambulance craft” is probably not how we want to describe motor life boats, but if the designation were expanded to mean “lifesaving craft” it might serve.
  • A number of smaller craft are not assigned one of their designations even though they are closely related to craft that were given a designation. This seemed more oversight than a problem in the system.

The “G” in WAGB, WAGL, and WYGL appears superfluous since there is no meaning already assigned to AB, AL, or YL. The “F” in WYFL also appears to serve no useful purpose.

It might benefit from a little tweaking, but generally, this appears to be a good system.

DARPA program to develop long-range UAVs for launch from small ships

Military Aerospace and Electronics is reporting a contract, “…to develop a medium-altitude long-endurance UAV for long-term maritime surveillance that can launch and recover from relatively small ships to provide airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike mobile targets anywhere, around the clock…The ultimate goal for a TERN UAV and launch system to enable persistent ISR and strike capabilities with payloads of 600 pounds while operating at ranges as long as 900 nautical miles from a host vessel.”

These would apparently be fixed wing UAVs , with two aircraft being able to maintain a 24 hour a day orbit. A flight demonstration is expected in 2017.

Note the small ships they refer to are only small compared to aircraft carriers, “The TERN system should be able to operate from several relatively small ship types in rough seas, including the 2,784-ton Independence-class littoral combat ship (LCS), which is 418 feet long and 104 feet wide, with a large aft-located flight deck. Other ships of interest are amphibious transport docks, dock landing ships, and Military Sealift Command cargo ships.”

They might still be capable of operating from some of the Coast Guard’s largest ships.

Trade-Offs In Patrol Vessels

Think Defence has brought to my attention, a paper that addresses a way to consider the various possible trade-offs that might be applied to the design of patrol ships. Specifically they look at a ship very similar in concept to the Coast Guard’s Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC). This straw-man ship is the latest version of BMT Defence Services’ “Venator” concept. It’s dimensions are on the large side but within the range previously used to describe the OPC.

  • Waterline Length: 107 m (351 ft)
  • Beam:                    15 m (49.2 ft)
  • Draft:                     4.3 m (14.1 ft)
  • Displacement: 3,200 tons (approx.)

You can read the paper here (pdf). The ThinkDefence’s post is here. Their discussion is always lively. There is a claim there, quoted from the Royal Navy’s web site, that the current Royal Navy OPVs are underway at least 275 days a year. Perhaps we need to find out how they are doing that.

Using this sort of approach to weigh alternatives, may not always result in superior ships, but it certainly requires an explicit statement of assumptions, and in an environment where decisions are subject to second guessing and must be explained, it documents the decision process.

Naval History Symposium with Coast Guard Characteristic, 19-20 Sept.

A small note you may have missed. The US Naval Academy is hosting a Naval History symposium, Thursday and Friday, 19 to 20 September and one of the topics is Coast Guard history (one of six topics presented 3:30-5:20 PM on the 19th). A quick overview here. More info here.

Quoted from the agenda

U.S. Coast Guard History, Papers:

  • Pioneers of American Diversity: A History of Minorities in the U.S. Coast Guard, William Thiesen, U.S. Coast Guard Atlantic Area Historian
  • OLDWEATHER.ORG project on Coast Guard Logbooks, Mark Mollan, National Archives and Records Administration
  • “The U.S. Coast Guard has Operational Forces which are Well-Suited to the Mission”: The Point-Class Cutters in Vietnam, Christopher Havern, U.S. Coast Guard Historian’s Office
  • Comment: Scott Price, U.S. Coast Guard Historian’s Office

The full program is here (pdf)

Strategic Thinkers?

There has been something of an on-going debate about how to deal with the unlikely, but potentially very important possibility of a War with China, between T. X. Hammes, author of the Offshore Control (OC) Strategy (a 16 page pdf), and Elbridge Colby. a proponent of “AirSea Battle,” in the blogs “The Diplomat” and “The National Interest.” The posts are here:

Strategy for an Unthinkable Conflict, By  T.X. Hammes, July 27, 2012

Don’t Sweat AirSea Battle, Elbridge Colby, July 31, 2013

Sorry, AirSea Battle Is No Strategy, T. X. Hammes,August 7, 2013

The War over War with China, Elbridge Colby, August 15, 2013

Offshore Control vs. AirSea Battle: Who Wins?, T. X. Hammes, August 21, 2013

————–

informationdissemination.net has also noted the exchange. There has been an ongoing discussion there as well.

To some extent this is an apples and oranges debate, in that while “Offshore Control” (OC) is fairly well developed strategy, “Air Sea Battle” (ASB) is only intended as an Operational Concept, and there is no fully developed unclassified explanation of all it involves. But Offshore Control would specifically exclude attacks on Chinese territory, so it effectively negates use of Air Sea Battle concepts against China, and as always, decisions like this drive procurement, so there is much at stake here, including possibly development of a new bomber for the Air Force and long range air and missile assets for the Navy.

In any case, if there is a war with China, it is likely there will be an attempt to blockade its shipping, most probably just outside the straits between the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. There is a good possibility that the Coast Guard would be ask to fill in, in this area, because the Navy will inevitably be overstretched.

7th FRC, Charles Davis, Jr., Delivered

gCaptain is reporting the delivery of the seventh Webber Class FRC, Charles Davis, Jr., WPC-1107.

“On the night of February 3, 1943, the U.S. Army transport USS DORCHESTER was torpedoed by a U-Boat off the coast of Greenland in the North Atlantic.    The CGC COMANCHE was on the scene and its crew desperately searched for survivors in the frigid waters.  David fearlessly volunteered to leave the safe haven of the COMANCHE to dive overboard to help rescue the DORCHESTER’s crew.  As other crewmen also volunteered to dive in, 93 survivors were rescued out of the freezing waters.

“After the last of the survivors were safely aboard, David began to climb the cargo net to the ship’s deck.  One of David’s shipmates, Richard Swanson, was having trouble climbing the net due to his freezing limbs.  David descended the net with the help of another crewman and pulled Swanson to the deck out of harm’s way.  Tragically, David died a few days later from pneumonia.”

Ship Type Designations–The Bertholfs are Minesweepers?

In the comments section of a previous post we got into a small discussion about type designations. The Coast Guard type designation system is supposed to be a straightforward adaptation of the Navy’s designation system that was initiated in 1920 with the expedient of preceding the standard designation with a “W” to indicate Coast Guard.

Initially the designation system was a relatively simple. Ships were uniquely identified by a two letter designator followed by consecutive hull numbers within the category defined by the designator. The first letter was a general classification and the second letter was to define a sub-category (e.g.–PG for patrol gunboat, WPG was the designation of large patrol cutters before the switch to WHEC). If there were no sub-category, the first letter would be repeated (e.g.–DD for destroyer). Since 1920, the system has gotten a bit more complex with additional modifiers added to basic designations, but generally the system has proven useful and has been adopted in a simplified, single letter form by NATO, and many of the world’s navies have followed their example.

Particularly recently, designations of several types, both Coast Guard and Navy, don’t fit the traditional system. Some of these deviations from the system at least have the advantage of a long history, but the newest designations (WMSL and WMSM) are particularly inappropriate and uninformative.

Why should we care?

The designations are shorthand for capabilities and help our friends and allies understand our ships’ capabilities and limitations. Using non-standard designations can lead to confusion and misunderstandings. Using the system correctly will also help our own personnel understand the logic of the US Navy and NATO designations better. These designations are not only used to identify our own forces, they are also frequently used in intelligence reports and discussions of other Navies’ vessels. I’ll make some suggestions, but first let us examine the system in more detail.

The W prefix:

The “W” prefix for Coast Guard is not the only prefix used this way. Currently MSC ships use a “T” prefix, followed by a dash, before the Navy standard designation. In World War II, ships being built in the US for Britain were given a “B” prefix. “E” has also been used as a prefix to denote experimental. At one time “O” was used as a prefix to indicate old. Notably the Army’s ships, which also generally follow the Navy system, do not use a prefix. NOAA does not use the system, their hull numbers are preceded only by an “R” for research or “S” for survey, and the first digit of their three digit hull number identifies a classification based on size and horsepower.

(Perhaps we should consider using a dash between the W and the remainder of the designation because it would be more understandable to those already familiar with the MSC system,)

Vocabulary for the first letter:

As noted, the first letter denotes a general category. They are listed below. Those used by the Coast Guard and their meaning are in bold:

A Auxiliary
B Battleship (now archaic)
C Cruiser
CV Aircraft Carrier
D Destroyer
F Frigate
IX Unclassified Miscellaneous (They may have avoided using the letter I alone because it might be mistaken for a one.)
L  Landing (amphibious warfare)
M Mine warfare
P Patrol
S Submarine
Y Yard (supporting craft used around a base)

(I suspect, since aircraft carriers were originally part of the scouting force, just as cruisers were, and the two first true fleet carriers (Saratoga and Lexington) were converted battle cruisers, that carriers may have originally been considered just a different sort of cruiser, an aviation cruiser, “V” meaning heavier than air aviation.)

Vocabulary for the NATO designations:

As noted NATO uses a single letter system, similar in most respects to the USN’s first letter.  I don’t think they use the “IX” or “Y” designations. The only other difference is the use of “R” for aircraft carriers and other ships primarily designed to operate aircraft including some we would not consider aircraft carriers.

Second and subsequent letter vocabulary:

As currently used in the US Navy system, several additional letters may follow to modify the initial general category. The list below includes both current and now archaic uses. I have tried to put the most frequent usage of the letter first, but in many cases I was unable to make a meaningful distinction. (A list of all current Navy ships with their designators and hull numbers is here. A little research will identify the ship’s purpose from which the meaning of the designator can be inferred, but I have attempted to include all the meanings below.) Apparently at times letters may be paired to convey meaning, there are some examples below (eg AC for Air Cushion). Those letters used by the Coast Guard and their meanings within the system are in bold:

A  Auxiliary, Assault, Attack, Armored or Heavy (cruiser) (archaic)
AC Air Cushion
B  Big, Boat, Ballistic Missile
C  Coastal, Craft, Command, Crane, Cable
CM Countermeasures
D  Dock, drone
E  Ammunition, escort (archaic)
F  Frigate
G    As applied to a warship–Guided missile (for surface ships–AAW area defense only eg DDG, does not include self defense missile; for submarines–specialized cruise missile carriers (eg SSGN)).
As applied to others–it seems a catch-all being applied to icebreakers (AGB), Oceanographic Research ships (TAGS), cargo submarines (AGSS), and many others; gun (archaic)
H  Helicopter, Hunter, Hospital
Intelligence (eg AGI) Infantry (archaic), Interceptor (archaic)
K  Cargo, ASW (Killer–archaic)
L  Large, Light (eg FFL), Leader (archaic), Lighthouse (archaic as AGL for light house tender)
Medium, Missile (cruise), Monitor (archaic) Midget (archaic), Mechanized (archaic)
MH  Minehunter
MS  Minesweeper (eg DMS, Destroyer Minesweeper)
N  Nuclear
O  Oiler, Ocean
OR Oceanographic Research (eg AGOR)
OS Ocean Surveillance
P  Transport (people?)
R  River(ine), Rubber, RO-RO, Replenishment, Repair, Rescue,  Research, Refrigerated (archaic?) , Radar (archaic), Rocket (archaic)
RC Cable, Repair
RS Submarine, Rescue
Sweeper, Support, Strike, Special, Seaplane (archaic)
T  Training, Tug, Target, Tank (eg LST), torpedo (archaic)
U  Utility
V  Heavier than Air Aviation, Vehicle (eg LSV)
W  Wing in ground effect
Z  Lighter than Air Aviation (archaic)

Current Coast Guard type designations:

Lets take a look at the Coast Guard’s ship designations. I think this list is exhaustive. The ship types with an asterisk already fit nicely in the system.

WAGB  Icebreaker*
WHEC High Endurance Cutter
WIX      Barque Eagle*
WLB     Buoy Tender, Large
WLBB  USCGC Mackinaw, Domestic Icebreaker
WLI      Buoy Tender, Inland
WLIC   Buoy Tender, Inland Construction
WLM   Buoy Tender, Medium
WLR    Buoy Tender, River
WMEC Medium Endurance Cutter
WMSL  Maritime Security, Large
WMSM Maritime Security, Medium
WPB    Patrol Boat*
WPC    Patrol Coastal or Craft*
WTGB  Icebreaking tug
WYTB  Yard Tug large*
WYTL  Yard Tug Light*

The ones that do not already fit the system are in three groups, The buoy tenders (including Mackinaw), the large patrol ships, and the icebreaking tugs.

What is wrong with WMSL and WMSM?

If you are familiar with the standard Navy system, when you see the designations WMSL and WMSM it tells you these ships are Coast Guard Mine Sweepers, Large and Medium (perhaps once). I presume these designations were chosen as an acronym that would hopefully help sell DHS on the idea of the ships, but these programs already have acronyms (NSC and OPC) and few outside the Coast Guard know what their designators are. When you designate these as “maritime security” assets are you saying others cutters are not? This would be particularly inaccurate, in that the smaller patrol craft are much more likely to be involved in maritime security missions than the larger ships which are more likely to be either cold iron or far from the populations centers if there is a sudden need for maritime security. (And isn’t maritime redundant? We are talking about the ships here.) We could have designated them WNSCs and WOPCs, and it would at least have had the advantage of not using a misleading “M” designator. Of course that would have had us calling them “winces” and “woops.”

It is true the Navy does have some ships that don’t conform to the norms of the designations system. They are:

DSRV  Deep submergence Rescue Vessel
JHSV  Joint High Speed Vessel
LCS    Littoral Combat Ship

The DSRV is very small. Both JHSV (Joint High Speed Vessel) and LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) are recent programs and acronyms for their respective programs, although the JHSV program is no longer joint, at least it does not use a misleading first letter. The LCS is the real outlier here, since LCS suggest Landing Craft, Support or Special. (In fact there was a growth industry among bloggers suggesting what, usually uncomplimentary, words LCS should stand for.)

“P” is the almost universally accepted designator for patrol ships. That is what these ships do. Why not simply designate the NSCs WPL and the OPCs WPM? (Incidentally the Japanese Coast Guard already use the designators PL and PM, but they would call both these ships PLH–Patrol, Large, Helicopter. Their PMs are all under 1,000 tons full load.) It may not be worth doing but the remaining WHECs and WMECs might also use these designations.

Recommendations:

The policy should be that Coast Guard designations will fit within the Navy’s system in so far as possible, and in the rare case where the Coast Guard is acquiring ships that don’t fit the systems, we should seek to amend the system.

The buoy tenders, and icebreaking tugs could have their designations changed to comply simply by inserting an “A” between the “W” and the rest of their current designation, but these ships all have a long history and they are unlikely to work with the Navy or allies so it probably is not worth changes existing designations now, but their replacements probably should get a more standardized designator, either beginning WA (CG auxiliary) or the Coast Guard could use one of the letters not included in the current Navy and NATO first letter vocabulary as the first letter following the W to uniquely identify the general type. “N” is available for aids to “Navigation.” We could use “I” or “IB” for icebreaker or perhaps “Z” might denote “below zero.” “T” is available for tug, but tug designations have always begun “AT.”

In any case, WMSM and WMSL really should be changed.