It occurred to me that having moved Harriet Lane to Hawaii and a report that a second 270 might be on as well, is the balance of distribution of cutters changing? Have we really beefed up our Pacific presence?
Looking back before the changes started in 2008 with the commissioning of Bertholf, the Coast Guard had 12 WHECs, 13 WMEC270s, 14 WMEC210s, Alex Haley, Acushnet (decommissioned 2011), and Storis (decommissioned 2007), 42 large patrol cutters (WMEC and larger). Of those, 10 WHECs, 3 WMEC210s, Alex Haley, Acushnet, an Storis were in the Pacific, 16 large patrol cutters or 38%,
Currently there are 10 Bertholf class National Security Cutters, 13 WMEC270s, 9 active WMEC210s, and Alex Haley for a total of 33 large patrol cutters. Of those, 6 NSCs, one WMEC270, and Alex Haley, a total of eight large patrol cutters are in the Pacific or 24%.
The first OPC and another WMEC270 are expected to go to the Pacific while NSC #11 will go to Atlantic Area. This will give us 35 large cutters with ten (29%) in the Pacific, if no additional 210s are decommissioned.
The four Eastern built OPCs are all expected to go to the Pacific, two in California and two in Alaska. They were expected to be finished first, but Austal may finish their first OPC before Eastern finishes all four.
How quickly the remaining 210s will be decommissioned (or placed in “in commission, special) remains a question. The current program of record plans to provide 36 large patrol cutters, 11 NSCs and 25 OPCs, but the original program of record would have provided 33 large patrol cutters. That is what we have now, so it is probably a floor we will try not to drop below. We can probably expect more 210s to be decommissioned on a one for one basis as the last NSC and new OPSs come online, especially since the new ships require more people than the 210s. All the 210s are now in the Atlantic so as the first OPCs are moved to the Pacific, we can expect a corresponding decrease in the number of Atlantic Area WMECs.
I think we will add a third WMEC 270 in the Hawaii. This would allow at least one to be deployed into the Western Pacific at all times. The current basing philosophy seems to recognize the advantages of basing at least three ships of a type together.
Looking ahead, assuming the fleet remains at a total of 33, by the end of 2028, certainly by 2030, the fleet will probably look like this, 11 NSCs, 13 WMEC270s, Alex Haley, and 8 OPCs or WMEC210s. (hopefully at least six 6 OPCs) with 6 NSCs, 3 WMEC270s, and 4 OPCs in the Pacific for a total of 13 or 39%, essentially the same relative distribution we had in 20 years ago but 6 fewer ships in the Atlantic and 3 fewer in the Pacific.
How the FRCs play into this.
As we have noted in the past, FRCs have been doing some of the work 210s would have done in the past, particularly drug and migrant interdiction in the Caribbean. There are already more FRCs (57) than the 49 Island class WPBs they were built to replace, and we are on track to have at least 67 and probably more, so, numerically, to total fleet is about the same size now and will be growing. It has already grown in terms of tonnage and total billets afloat.
How does the distribution of FRCs look? I did a post on this in May.
The Graphic above is a little out of date. two FRCs are now in Oregon. Disregarding PATFORSWA and WPC-1123, which was damaged by fire and probably will never be repaired, current totals, are 50 WPCs with 15 in the Pacific, 30%.
My projection of future homeports suggests ultimately Atlantic Area will receive three more FRCs and the Pacific Area nine more for a total of 62, with 24 (39%) in the Pacific. This is statistically identical to the distribution of large patrol cutters 20 years ago.
Is This Rational?
Broadly speaking, where we put our cutters and how they are distributed should be based on: (1) Where the people served are? and (2) Size of the areas being patrolled? But we also have to ask, (3) What is happening in those areas?
There are more people living on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts than on Pacific coasts. This does suggest that the Atlantic Area should have more assets, which is certainly the case. They have more pleasure boats, more sport fishermen. They may have more fishermen, but I feel sure they have fewer distant water fishermen. Many of these missions are near shore. This suggests more small cutters should be in the Atlantic.
On the other hand, the Pacific Area includes 84% of US EEZ and includes valuable commercial fishing, tuna in the Western Pacific and a wide variety of fishing of the Alaskan Coast. The distances are great. This suggests that more large cutters should be in the Pacific.
We are also trying to help our allies in the Pacific. Atlantic Area is also trying to grow capacity in Africa, but this is generally on a smaller scale and has historically been done by WMEC270s.
That Atlantic coast cutters are closer to the Eastern Pacific drug transit zones than Pacific coast cutters suggest more cutters in Atlantic Area. (This is why all of South America is considered part of the Atlantic Fleet’s operating area.)
The Alien Migrant interdiction problem in the Caribbean suggest the need for cutters in the Atlantic but these operations are relatively close to shore and have the advantage of nearby shore based fixed wing air coverage so the mission can generally be accomplished by smaller cutters. It is FRCs and WMECs that commonly do this mission now.
What we see is that, in terms of larger and smaller cutters, the Atlantic needs a large number of cutters but most can be smaller, while the Pacific needs proportionately more large cutters than the Atlantic and in fact probably more in absolute numbers, this is why in the past ten WHECs were assigned to Pacific Area while only two were assigned to the Atlantic.
The program of record really includes no medium sized patrol cutters, we will have only large cutters, 4,600 ton NSCs and 4,500 ton OPCs, and small patrol cutters, 353 ton FRCs. Contrary to what is said, we have no direct replacements for the WMECs since both NSCs and OPCs are definitely high endurance cutters.
We need a detailed fleet mix study that considers various alternatives to determine the best distribution of cutters and the most appropriate types for the mix of missions.
A new Fleet Mix Study has been completed, but it has not been made public, so we don’t know its recommendations or how complete the study of alternative was. The last Fleet Mix study, only considered NSCs, OPCs, and FRCs. At the time it was expected that OPCs would be much smaller than they turned out to be. I fear they may have similarly limited alternatives in the new study.
These decisions are complex. My feeling, informed by the results of the previous fleet mix study, is that building only 36 large cutters is not enough; that we need at least medium sized cutters (a modern MEC) in Guam and American Samoa; that we will not be able to build as many large patrol cutters as be need because OPCs have become too expensive and perhaps unnecessarily large for many missions.
We have contracts in place for up to 15 OPCs. That will give us 26 large cutters (NSCs and OPCs). It is not too late to contract for more than ten, perhaps as many as 20, truly medium sized cutters that would have smaller crews and perhaps more military potential, in this increasing hostile environment, than OPCs.