With the retirement of the HU-25 Falcons, will the Coast Guard be sacrificing some of its flexibility, especially in its ability to conduct medium-range search-and-rescue missions?
Because of budget cutbacks, many of the Coast Guard’s medium-range search (MRS) aircraft—HU-25 Falcon jets—are being retired from active service. Within a year, all HU-25 resources will be gone from the West Coast, and only HU-25B and C variants will remain on the Gulf and East Coast. The Commandant has stated that he does not want streamlining to degrade or reduce services to Coast Guard customers, but the retirement of the HU-25s may create an operational gap that will affect the Coast Guard’s ability to conduct missions effectively.1
In the Pacific Area, it has been proposed that the HU-25A be replaced by the HH-60J helo for the medium-range rescue role2 and the C-130 for fixed-wing response. But basic differences between the area coverages of a jet vis-a-vis a helicopter—or even vis-a-vis a C-130—are significant. Additional factors of response time and payloads, such as sensor packages, also should be considered.
Current Coast Guard Missions
The Coast Guard is the federal maritime law enforcement service of the United States. Closely aligned with this domestic role is its tasking to interact with the Navy as a contributor to national defense. The four broad mission areas of the Coast Guard are safety, law enforcement, environmental protection, and defense readiness.3 Virtually all of these missions require aviation resources, but several are particularly suited to the MRS aircraft and its capabilities.
Maritime Safety. Search and rescue (SAR) traditionally has been a primary mission of the Coast Guard. Even with all the improvements in equipment, such as global positioning systems, the Coast Guard has not seen any significant decrease in search-and-rescue cases. In the foreseeable future, there will continue to be a need for an aircraft to respond to offshore SAR.
Maritime Law Enforcement. Within this mission, there are several specialized areas where the MRS is in its prime:
Living Marine Resources (LMRs). The Coast Guard is committed to the protection of this resource—valued at more than $24 billion annually—and the enforcement of all LMR laws of the United States. Protection of the world’s fisheries is key to the economic and physical survival of many people, and LMR issues are becoming increasingly volatile as fish stocks are depleted. The Coast Guard’s role lies both in monitoring fishing fleets and in patrolling closed areas for poachers.
Counterdrug Operations. As the federal maritime law enforcement agency, the Coast Guard is charged with combating drug smuggling along sea routes and along the U.S. coastline. Neither supply nor demand have diminished over the years, despite education, eradication, and enforcement efforts, but national policy still relies on interdiction and interception of smugglers, and this requires an effective patrol effort.4
Alien Migrant Interdiction Operations. Despite interdiction efforts, boatloads of people continue to undertake arduous sea voyages to come to the United States. As with Haiti, Cuba, and China, other countries could undergo political upheaval or economic hardship and create an influx of illegal immigrants.
Marine Environmental Protection. Even before the Oil Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 was enacted, the Coast Guard was responsible for pollution patrol and monitoring. Aviation is the primary means to obtain a quick overview of conditions on scene and provides the ability to plot and map oil spills with such technology as the “Aireye” system on board the HU-25B.
The development of marine sanctuaries adds the responsibility to oversee miles of open ocean, adjacent to protected coastline. Although these sanctuaries are within the purview of several federal and state agencies, the Coast Guard’s responsibilities in the marine environment suggest its role as the primary enforcement agency. As the federal agency with the patrol resources, the Coast Guard also often responds to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service requests for assistance.5
Maritime Defense Readiness. The Coast Guard has a requirement to contribute to the coastal defense of the United States. Maritime Defense Zone sector responsibility often rests on a senior Coast Guard command in a region. As the Gulf War and U.S. operations in Haiti demonstrate, harbor and port security, both at home and in theater, also have a niche within the Coast Guard. Despite the reduction of some threats since the end of the Cold War, recent incidents of domestic terrorism highlight the continuing need for vigilant protection of maritime centers. Although Coast Guard aircraft are not considered combat capable per se, they can and do fly missions in response to DoD mission tasking.
Virtually all of these mission areas can make excellent use of aviation resources. Flexibility in using both long- and short-range assets is a key element in the Coast Guard operational commander’s bag of tricks. However, the number of available resources is small, so proper resource-mission alignment not only ensures the most efficient use of an aircraft, but also allows the right aircraft to be available for the right mission. This is where the considerable difference in radius of action between the C-130 and the HU-25 comes into play.6
It may not be the most cost-effective way to conduct operations to have a long-range resource such as the C-130 conduct close-in surveillance, especially if there are only a handful of those long-range resources available. In the case of Coast Guard West Coast units, their presence often is required in such far-reaching areas as Hawaii or Alaska.
The differences between a C-130 and an HH-60 are obvious. One would not expect to launch an HH-60 on a huge, open-water search of many square miles of ocean. Similarly, one would not expect to see a C-130 responding to a wind surfer in distress deep inside San Francisco Bay. There is, in fact, a large gap between the patrol capabilities of the Coast Guard’s long-range resource and its medium-range recovery resource.
The C-130 has a nominal patrol range of more than 4,000 track miles for up to 14 hours. The HU-25 has an approximate track mile range of more than 2,300 nautical miles during five and three-quarter hours. The HH-60J can reasonably produce only 800 nautical miles of search mileage in a maximum of six hours. This is a significant difference. Not only would this gap make an operational commander lose sleep, but the efficiency of the remaining resources would be strained because no other mission areas can be sacrificed.
Future Force Structure Options
The first option is to reactivate the HU-25As. There are still a significant number of HU-25 pilots and maintenance personnel in the service, so the learning curve to resume normal operations would be shallow. Although the HU-25s are approaching 20 years of service life, they still are capable airframes, able to conduct the missions for which they were designed. The HU-25 could be enhanced by technology upgrades, but it does not require any specific modifications to enable it to perform well.
The main drawback to reactivating the HU-25A is its Operational cost, which, of course, must be weighed against the cost of introducing a new aircraft. The Coast Guard still operates HU-25s, so all training costs—e.g., primary maintenance, technical training, and the establishment of a simulator—would not have to be paid again. In addition, if the recall of the HU-25A is viewed as an interim measure until a more advanced solution is available, the overall endeavor will never match the investment made when the Coast Guard activated ex-Air Force C-131s to fill the gap between the departure of the HU-16 and the introduction of the HU-25.7
The second option is to upgrade or purchase additional airframes of existing aircraft such as the C-130 or HH-60. Lockheed, the manufacturer of the C-130, recently began production of the C-1 30J. Still a four-engine, long-range aircraft, the "J" includes all the technological advances made since the C-130 first flew in 1950. A flight-deck crew of three, plus new avionics and improved engine efficiency and performance, will make this new aircraft highly desirable in the next century. Combined with the C-130J, additional HH-60Js could help close gaps in medium-range coverage. The purchase price of the HH-60J has risen to approximately $18 million, however, so acquisition of these airframes will require a substantial funding commitment.
A third option is provided by several relatively new airframes available on the commercial market that may be highly suitable as medium-range resources. Two of these are the de Havilland DHC-8 and the Canadair CL-415M amphibian.
The DH-8 has proved to be a successful medium-range transport for commercial air carriers as well as the Canadian armed forces. The twin turboprop power and advanced technology cockpit provide an aircraft that will be usable for many years. The beauty of this aircraft is that it has been specifically modified to the maritime patrol function for nations such as Australia, and it is a fully operational production aircraft with sensors ready for patrol.8
The CL-415M also may fill the requirement for a medium-range search platform. Its integration of sensors and its durable airframe give it a multi-mission character, which the Coast Guard uses so effectively. An amphibious capability, while not a requirement, suggests an aircraft that is built for the rigors of maritime operations.9
There are many advantages to the purchase or lease of a proved airframe. The costs associated with the acquisition of such an aircraft, however, could be prohibitively high. One way to establish costs more accurately, especially in the Coast Guard environment, might be to lease the aircraft in order to evaluate operational performance. Because these aircraft would be introduced from a standing start, full training for operations and maintenance would take extra time and money.
One final option might come from the emerging technology of the tilt-rotor V-22. First developed for the U.S. Marine Corps as a fast, penetrating troop hauler, then as a special operations aircraft, the V-22 has speed and range that are highly desirable. On the other hand, the costs associated with this aircraft and the time lag still required for production have diminished some of the enthusiasm for this option. Any real interest in acquisition by the Coast Guard can come only after the aircraft has demonstrated an acceptable performance and maintenance standard consistent with small-unit operations.10
Conclusion
As a high-cost program in an era of tight budgets, Coast Guard aviation receives close scrutiny. The HU-25 always has been an expensive aircraft to fly and maintain, but it has been employed with great success. Perhaps the HU-25 is not perfect for the medium-range role. Perhaps it never was. But it is what the Coast Guard bought. Now after almost 20 years, the Coast Guard is depleting its force of HU-25s in what could be construed as solely a budgetary move. There has been no decrease in the requirement for a patrol resource; if anything, the medium-range requirement has increased. The reduction of the HU-25 fleet may save some money, but its loss will cost the Coast Guard much more.
1 Adm. Robert E. Kramek, USCG, “Commandant’s Direction,” U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C., February 1995, Goal 3: Meet the mandate to streamline with no reduction in essential services.
2 Coast Guard Aviation Resiting Plan, U.S. Coast Guard (G-OAV), Washington, D.C., 1 July 1994.
3 Cdr. Bruce B. Stubbs, USCG, “Say Goodbye to the Cutter Fleet?” Fundamentals of Force Planning, Vol. II: Defense Planning Cases (Newport, RI: Naval War College Press, 1991), pp. 509-10.
4 “Program Direction for the Operational Law Enforcement Division,” U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C., October 1994, p. 7.
5 Microsystems Integration Inc. and Battelle Ocean Sciences, “Coast Guard Fisheries Enforcement Strategy Study Report,” U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C., June 1993, pp ii-iii.
6 “Aviation Requirements,” Plates 6-10.
7 Arthur Pearcy, U.S. Coast Guard Aircraft Since 1916 (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1991), pp. 145-47.
8 Derek Wood, Jane’s World Aircraft Recognition Handbook (London: Jane’s Publishing Company, 1987), p. 328.
9 “Always Keep Your Options Open,” Canadair ad, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, May 1995, p. 19.
10 “A New Era in Aviation,” Bell-Boeing ad, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, May 1995, p. 148.
Lieutenant Commander Stott is a graduate of the Citadel and Coast Guard Officer’s Candidate School. An aviator, he has served tours in Texas, Alaska, and California, and an exchange tour at Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, South Carolina. Lieutenant Commander Stott is a graduate of the Naval Command and Staff College and currently serves on the staff of the Commander, Coast Guard Pacific Area, in Alameda, California.