Should the USCG be getting more bang for it's buck? [Archive]

Bort

01-29-06, 03:54 AM

For those unaware, the US Coast Guard is in the midst of a huge cutter/aircraft aquistion program called deepwater. The crown jewel of this effort is the new Bertholf class 418" National Security Cutters. These will be the largest non-icebreakers the Coast Guard has ever operated and should be capable of deploying with Carrier Strike Groups overseas or conducting long range independent patrols. They look to be nice ships with a semi stealthy design and excellent systems, but IMHO they are lacking in one crucial aspect-weapons. They are to be equipped with just 1 57mm bofors main gun and a CIWS (either a phalanx or SeaRam) plus the usual .50 cals and small arms. Thats it. The USCG up until the 90's operated cutters with torpedos, LAMPS data links, sonar, a three inch gun and a Phalanx plus, for a short time, Harpoons. These cutters were much shorter, less beamy and had less displacement than the new Bertholf class. Why not give the new cutters weapons to play a wider role in warfare and homeland security? A sonar of some sort, twin triple torpedo tubes and perhaps even an eight or even sixteen cell VLS aft of the gun capable of carrying the Evolved Sea Sparrow in quad packs or VLASROC and a Harpoon launcher with the required electronics would make this vessel a viable modern combatant in ASW, with limited ASUW and AAW capability, able both to supplement USN forces and be a more potent force in homeland security as well. What's your opinion?
http://www.icgsdeepwater.com/albums/album01/NSC.sized.jpg
http://www.uscg.mil/deepwater/images/nscbow.jpg
http://www.icgsdeepwater.com/albums/album01/FEB05_NSC.jpg
http://www.uscg.mil/deepwater/[/img]

Konovalov

01-29-06, 07:29 AM

Those new Bertholf class Cutters look awesome. Really nice lines. :|\

TteFAboB

01-29-06, 07:39 AM

They look fantastic indeed, I don't know their place in the US Navy, but if you can afford to arm them better, why not indeed? Unless the money is necessary elsewhere, on a more important program.

TLAM Strike

01-29-06, 11:17 AM

...I don't know their place in the US Navy... For those who don't know in peacetime the USCG is basically a military police force now under the control of the Department of Homeland Security (before they were under the control of the department of the Treasury and then the Department of Transportation). They do operate along side the US Navy but only during wartime (or on the order of the President) do they become an arm of the Department of the Navy.

Anyways some additional weapons on the Cutters would be nice but I don't think it really needs Harpoon missiles. A few ESSMs and torpedoes would be nice. Maybe mount something much smaller like the Penguin missile. Sonar is a must have though, maybe even HFS ones for hunting mines, I think that is something terrorists might try in the future.

Mustang

01-29-06, 12:02 PM

no more Ice-Breakers?
Will they keep the old ones in service for ICe-oPS?

I think the coast guard should have ASUW Defense, Offense and Detection capabilities. AAW Offense, Defense and Detection Capability and ASW Defense and Detection capability.

ASUW- The reason is clear, ASUW is done daily to check for contraband, criminals, etc.

AAW- I think they should be able to accurately detect a missle, fire a chaff to confuse it lock onto to whatever aircraft fired it at them and return the favor.

ASW- I don't think it should be loaded for submarine combat. I think it should be able to accurately detect and then report to the navy an enemy sub or investigate a posssub and in the event launch countermeasures hopeing someone forgot the safties on their torpedo. Maybe they could be loaded with depth charges but their boats are so small I don't think it would work.

Takeda Shingen

01-29-06, 12:07 PM

Essentially, I agree with Mustang and TLAM on the points of ASUW and AAW. Regarding SONAR applications, I tend to agree with TLAM in the capacity of having HFAS for mines and perhaps MF active for basic submarine detection. However, no torpedoes. Leave the ASW for the navy.

Torplexed

01-29-06, 12:42 PM

Very sleek looking ship. :up:

Sonar is certainly a must. I've read of at least two instances in which the drug cartels in South America attempted to build a submarine for smuggling purposes. Maybe someday they'll succeed in creating a oceanic version.

TteFAboB

01-29-06, 12:53 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/915059.stm

A torpedo would be overkill, simply wait for it to surface and ram the thing to death! :arrgh!:

:lurk:

Bort

01-29-06, 03:33 PM

In addition to a hull or bow mounted sonar, I think that it would be wise to have a modular towed array that could be fitted, perhaps in place of the large RHIB docking wells at the stern. This would greatly expand ASW capabilities in deep waters.
http://www.icgsdeepwater.com/albums/album05/aai.sized.jpg

TLAM Strike

01-29-06, 03:48 PM

PeriscopeDepth

01-29-06, 03:53 PM

IMHO, I think money would be far better spent giving each ocean going USCG vessel a SpecOps team, either military or a new USCG team (don't believe the USCG operates any SpecOps types?) I think giving them torpedoes, sonar, and VLS weapons are a waste of money. There is no vast Soviet Navy that's going to be parking off the US coast in a time of war anymore. Smuggler submarines can be handled with a FLIR and Hellfires. Multimillion dollar combat systems are not needed.

Not that I oppose spending money on the CG. I just think money would be better spent where it would be used. To me this would mean purchasing a few mini-LHD vessels (or perhaps even modifying large merchants?) that have the capacity for about 4 UAVs that have something similar to Predator B specs and two MH-60Rs. A general acqusition of UAVs by the CG would be a good thing. You could operate a small detachment from civil fields on the coast. Cheaper and more effecient than operating the CGs current search aircraft probably. And it's better for ID'ing threats that may enter the country and boarding them. Which is what the USCG is for IMO, we already have a large Navy that blows things up.

PD

Bort

01-29-06, 03:59 PM

The RHIBs are more important than a towed array for a Cutter. Their job is to go board and inspect ships not act as a ASW ship. Having some ASW gear is good but turning it in to a Frigate isn't what the USCG needs.

As you can see in the concept images in my original post, the Bertholf would still have 2 RHIBS, launched over the side from amidships, even without the rear ramps. All i'm suggesting is that if the Bertholf were used in a primarily ASW role, the ramps could be removed and a towed array fitted.

Bort

01-29-06, 04:15 PM

IMHO, I think money would be far better spent giving each ocean going USCG vessel a SpecOps team, either military or a new USCG team (don't believe the USCG operates any SpecOps types?)
They do, sort of. The USCG formed several MSST's (Maritime Safety and Security Teams) after 9/11, they are equiped with special boats and heavy weapons, and have special training for anti-terroism and law enforcement. They are trained for vertical (helo) insertion via zip line to ships and are experts in boarding.

A general acqusition of UAVs by the CG would be a good thing. You could operate a small detachment from civil fields on the coast. Cheaper and more effecient than operating the CGs current search aircraft probably. And it's better for ID'ing threats that may enter the country and boarding them.
The USCG is getting UAV's. The Bell Eagle Eye tilt rotor in the near term, which can be operated from land as well as the larger cutters, and in the long term some Global Hawk ultra-long range UAV's.
http://www.usni.org/proceedings/Articles03/images03/2alam08.jpg
http://www.icgsdeepwater.com/albums/album04/aan.sized.jpg

TLAM Strike

01-29-06, 04:28 PM

A general acqusition of UAVs by the CG would be a good thing. You could operate a small detachment from civil fields on the coast. Cheaper and more effecient than operating the CGs current search aircraft probably. And it's better for ID'ing threats that may enter the country and boarding them. You are forgetting the Search and Rescue aspect of the CG, large C-130s etc are very good for SAR since they can deploy rafts and air drop food to people in distress. The search aircraft is often the first on scene and should be capable of more then just radioing for help.

If you were on a ship in distress would you rather see a C-130 overhead that could drop rafts and supplies or a UAV that just buzzes around?

Kapitan

01-30-06, 02:26 AM

From my view id love to see the C130 dropping me a raft if i were in distress, but instead for my effort id end up seeing some guy waving to me hundreds of miles away. :o

I agree these cutters should be heavily armed especialy in the carrbean side with the drug smugglers and what not, yes there are warships out there but they cant be everywhere.

bradclark1

01-30-06, 12:32 PM

Put quad fifties fore and aft. That will make anyone pucker up no matter what they are in.

Kapitan

01-30-06, 12:34 PM

you think ?............................

sonar732

01-30-06, 03:08 PM

Something to think about is that the drug smuggler and the terrorist infiltrating a port visit...USS Cole...would be better off taken out by a nice sized gun instead of a missile. My choice would be plenty of .50 cal's and the 57mm gun.

Mustang

01-30-06, 03:15 PM

I retract myprior ideals, lets just mount a Rail Gun Fore and aft, Quad 50 cals duel and side by side on the starboard and port decks
Stinger Launchers, Proximity mines with a remote magnetic glow rod so if there happens to be a sub floating by the magnet latches and goes BOOM! Oh and Depth Charges. and Countermeasures.

Etienne

01-30-06, 06:45 PM

bradclark1

01-30-06, 10:39 PM

tycho102

01-30-06, 11:06 PM

Coast Guard ain't the Navy.

If America ever closes (I say "close" rather than "secure", because the best job America can do is a half-arsed job of "closing" it, which would actually make it "secure", rather than just a half-arsed job of "securing" it :roll: ) that southern border, the narcs will go open-ocean. Probably some up to Canada and down through ND and MN, but a lot will be the usual fast runners. They'll eventually get some subs going, beyond any doubt. They will purchase that stuff from the Russians and Chinese.

Eventually, the Coast Guard will have to form a few battle groups of large, fast-attack vessels. We will probably have to re-start the hydrofoil projects, and load them with AS missiles and UAV's. Subrocs, sonabuoys, listening posts. It's going to get crazy if we ever get the border "secured". The spice MUST flow!

They don't belong off the damn coast, that's for sure. They have plenty to do in the backyard. I certainly don't "oppose" them heading over to Iraq, but they stay busy just down in the Gulf, between oil rigs. If they feel like playing over seas, go play overseas. They can have a full blown wog day, and dive the engine cannisters, and measure the flight deck with a weiner, and tabasco sauce, and all the other fun games.

The Navy is the Navy for a reason. The Coast Guard is the Coast Guard for a reason. Cross train a little bit, but do the job you're supposed to be doing.

[edit: Whoops! Guess I should've read through the thread before posting...]

Rockstar

01-30-06, 11:42 PM

They don't need a CIWS, torpedos, missles and such toys when their primary mission is Search and Rescue. Secondaries are drug interdiction, alien migration interdiction and other enforcement of domestic and international laws treaties.

.50 cals come in handy when you just got done removing 600 Haitians from a 50 foot Haitian freighter and don't feel like towing it back to base. Scares the crap outta them too, makes'em think twice about trying it again. (:))

TLAM Strike

01-30-06, 11:59 PM

I disagree with you Rockstar about the CIWS. That is the one navy grade weapon they must have in addition to a heavy gun.

Marhkimov

01-31-06, 12:18 AM

I think a gun like the CIWS would come in handy. So would a few 50 cals.

But torpedoes and other heavy weaponry seem a bit over and beyond the duties of the US Coast Guard. If something should need to be destroyed, maybe they should call in the Navy or the Air Force.

Bort

01-31-06, 12:29 AM

The biggest thing the coast guard might have to intercept is, (ISPS lover's favorite scenario) a hijacked ULCC. The best way to do that is with a spec ops team, and maybe some intimidation - A shot accross the bow works nicely for me. When the drug runners start using submarines (For real! Come ON!), they'll worry about that, there and then.
The Coast Guard does not just face down drug boats and hijacked merchies, during WWII and the Cold War they played an important ASW role as well. Today, with the shrinking Navy fleet of FFG's, as well as the Navy's disintrest in building any new primarily ASW surface combatants, the Bertholf with a 4,112 ton displacement (larger than the Perry class' 4,000 tons) makes an excellent fill in for the ASW patrol/escort mission. At least 8 Bertholf's will be built (although studies have shown a need for more than 30, which may be ordered if funding is there) so the USCG could pick up a sizeable amount of the Navy's slack, while still fulfilling other missions and presenting a more formidable threat to those that threaten US waters.

It'd be simply ridiculous to outfit the USCG with harpoon, torpedoes, towed array sonar, and you name it... I'd say that dinghy launch bay stern is probably the best thing ever put on a coast guard cutter since the helicopter.

The Russian Border Guard Forces (ex-KGB) operate far more heavily armed vessels that the USCG, including 6 Krivak III's that are almost as heavily armed as their Navy brethren. I think they may be on to something-keeping foreign subs and anything else unwanted out of our waters would be easier with an ASW armed Coast Guard. The stern ramp is a great idea, I just think that it should be removable so it could be replaced by a modular towed array.

Kapitan

01-31-06, 02:28 AM

The Russian Border Guard Forces (ex-KGB) operate far more heavily armed vessels that the USCG, including 6 Krivak III's that are almost as heavily armed as their Navy brethren. I think they may be on to something-keeping foreign subs and anything else unwanted out of our waters would be easier with an ASW armed Coast Guard. The stern ramp is a great idea, I just think that it should be removable so it could be replaced by a modular towed array.

Its true, only diffrence is the russian boarder gaurds are there to stop immagrents in boats chechen rebels and also georgian naval combat vessels so the need for a krivack is well a must.

georgian navy's largest ship is around 1/2 the size of a krivack but can still pull the cat out of the bag, it is missile armed and does mount a gun no border gaurd patrol vessel could combat this effectvly so they did decide on a few krivaks as the navy wouldnt be able to respon in time to any real time threat.

Gorduz

01-31-06, 03:00 AM

The main problems with having more guns is more maintanance. The coastguard does not need missiles of any sort, as the ship in any cases would need to be inspected before sinking it.

The Norwegian cost guard does have the opurtunity to mount penguin misslies on their cutters, but this is never used, and the new vessels will not have that option.

But then again the police in Norway is unarmed...

PeriscopeDepth

01-31-06, 03:30 AM

Who poses a signifigant ASW threat to US waters? Nobody. Picking up the Navy's slack would be better served by MORE USN vessels, not the CG playing Navy. It simply takes resources and training away from the CG's mission: saving people's lives and providing homeland security through maritime interdiction. Just because they have played navy before doesn't mean they should be doing it now, no matter how good real military hardware looks on their cutters.

The reason that Russia has a relatively heavily armed Coast Guard is because they have to deal with potentially hostile naval forces that happen to be belong to their neighbors. We have to deal with Canada, Mexico, and Latin America. Al-Qaeda will NOT be sailing ex-Russian DDGs out to US waters to do a little commerce raiding anytime soon. Neither will drug runners.

PD

Etienne

01-31-06, 08:45 AM

I agree with PD, and I'll just add that the difference between the Russian Coast Guard and the USCG is that they have a wholly different mission and philosophy.

The RCG is a national defense force.

The USCG is a security and economic defense force, an immigration control service and a marine safety service.

Take a look at the Canadian Coast Guard. They're civillian, and entirely unarmed. Yet they manage to do the job (Minus boarding party and intercepting drug runners - it's not a problem here). So in the US's case, I'd say some light weaponry, but torpedoes and advanced weapon systems? Come. On.

The Cold War is O-V-E-R. And the war on terrorism is going to be entirely different.

Rockstar

01-31-06, 10:32 AM

Real icebreakers are painted red.

Bort

01-31-06, 01:29 PM

The RCG is a national defense force.

The USCG is a security and economic defense force, an immigration control service and a marine safety service.
One of the primary missions of the Coast Guard is national defense, hense the USCG's participation in every major war the US has ever fought (1812, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, Gulf War, Iraq War, War on Terror and some others). Not to mention exercising soverignty over US waters.

The Cold War is O-V-E-R. And the war on terrorism is going to be entirely different.
Yes, it is,, but the titanic clash of the US and China will soon begin :o . And they have subs-and ships, lots of em and soon to be more. I have a feeling that soon we'll need all the ASW we can get.

Real icebreakers are painted red.
the Big Mac is red now, she was repainted sometime after the 1999 or 2000 ice seasons. I'm not sure why they took so long. She looked better in white anyway IMHO.
http://www.mightymac.org/oldmackinaw03.jpg

Bort

01-31-06, 07:12 PM

*BUMP*

Rockstar

02-01-06, 10:46 AM

When the Westwind left the lakes there were no more real breakers around so they painted that showboat wannbe breaker :)

(WAGB 281) Westwind 1980-83

Bort

02-01-06, 03:01 PM

When the Westwind left the lakes there were no more real breakers around so they painted that showboat wannbe breaker
Umm... The Mackinaw is actually longer and wider than the Wind class ice breakers, and are only behind the Wind's in draft and displacement.
Wind Class
length 269 ft
beam 63 1/2 ft
6,500 tons displacement
Mackinaw
length 290ft
beam 74ft
5,000 tons displacement

I'm pretty sure that the Mackinaw is more than just a "wannabe" icebreaker, which cutter is still in service after 62 years?
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/gifs/Mackinaw_3.jpg