OK, so it Wasn't a Special Reason for the DDG
...the simple answer is almost always the correct answer...
There she is, underway four days ago: the USS Charleston (LCS 18).
Sigh.
Anyway, remember a few months ago when everyone was aflutter because, as part of the Trump Administration’s rush to secure the southern border, the Navy was called in?
As reported by Military Times in March,
The Pentagon made waves Monday when it announced the deployment of the Arleigh-Burke class destroyer Gravely to patrol near the southern border, with a second destroyer reportedly expected to join the effort.
U.S. Northern Command announced that the Gravely will be sailing with a U.S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment, or LEDET, team on board, with sailors expected to work closely with LEDET personnel as a part of drug trafficking interdictions, according to Air Force Lt. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, Joint Staff director for operations.
Why not the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)? The USCG clearly did not have the ships to respond to the requirement that was clearly in their remit. The USCG is too small, and what it has is poorly deployed doing such things as the zombie mission in the Persian Gulf. We don’t have enough Coast Guard assets to guard our coast because we are doing it for the Gulf Arabs and their coasts.
To the Navy the call went, and the Navy answered with Carrier Strike Group escorts—the equivalent of the Florida Highway Patrol having Florida National Guard M2 Bradleys enforcing speed limits at the I-95/I-4 interchange.
At a time when we were stretching available DDGs to support combat operations off Yemen, many people, including me, wondered why we were sending high-demand, low-density assets like DDGs for what is clearly a USCG and law enforcement operation.
The usual suspects who saw nothing wrong anywhere were convinced that there must be some special reason—a unique capability—that required a DDG.
Well, maybe, but with the short-notice requirement following a new administration taking office, it seemed clear to me and others that the reason was simply a lack of more suitable units.
The underlying reason is simple; our Navy is too small, suffering decades of poor stewardship in maintenance and program management, and too much in demand, such that we do not have a diverse handful of ships that can deploy at short notice.
I mean, have you looked at what TheIntelFrog put together on our large-deck amphibs?
The Navy ship most would think were more suited to low-end border security missions is the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). We have plenty in San Diego and a not-so-short trip across the Gulf of America and around Florida to Mayport. However, it seems earlier this spring, they simply were not all that available for a host of systemic reasons.
Of course the DDGs are overkill for the border mission, but someone had to do it. If no other ship from the fleet we designed after the spawn of Goldwater-Nichols put its hands around the throat of our Navy, then we would once again have to lean on the last pre-Goldwater-Nichols designed surface combatant—the glorious Arleigh Burke DDG.
Of course, calling that out causes gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes…but time shows that we were correct.
If DDGs were required for their special sauce, then they would be replaced by DDGs. If they were just covering for lower-tier ships that were not ready, then they would be replaced by those other ships (LCS) once they managed to get enough duct tape, bailing wire, and Pro-Seal to get ready for deployment.
The Independence-variant littoral combat ship USS Charleston (LCS 18) departed Naval Base San Diego to support U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) southern border operations, May 20.
Charleston takes over duties previously carried out by the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Stockdale (DDG 106) and will conduct similar operations in support of USNORTHCOM’s border security objectives.
Charleston’s departure reinforces the Navy’s role in the Department of Defense’s coordinated effort in response to Presidential executive orders and directives. Charleston’s sea-going capacity contributes to USNORTHCOM’s ability to protect the United States’ territorial integrity, sovereignty, and security, through a coordinated, multi-domain strategy.
Charleston will continue operations with an embarked U.S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment (LEDET). These Coast Guard teams bring specialized expertise in maritime interdiction, enabling the ship to address a range of challenges, from countering illegal activities to supporting humanitarian efforts and homeland security operations.
I’m glad that LCS has a little of a redemption arc going on here. She’s shown the flag a bit in the Pacific. Has been helping in the Caribbean, and now helping secure the border. Our Littoral Combat Ship cannot help in combat in the Red Sea littorals, but she can do this mission.
Sometimes you do a Coast Guard mission with the Navy you have, not the Coast Guard you wish you had.
I don't understand why people are acting like the embarked USCG law enforcement teams aboard USN assets is new. This has been going on for over 30 years that I can account for. The news chose to spin this one up as if it was a new initiative, but it's ops normal for over a generation.
I went to the commissioning of the Freedom in Milwaukee. Said then "this is a ship the Coast Guard should have" and the national cutter could be the frigate we're looking for." Knew then it would be a failure.
My daughter spent 8 months as a helo O-in-C on an LCS in the Persian Gulf. When not broken down, it was on water hours. Horrible operating environment...helo blade storage that doesn't fit the blades, elevators that can't lift, undermanned crew, horrible accomidations for visiting aircrew.