Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: The Coast Guard means business Message-ID: <7093@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 3 Jun 89 04:52:40 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego Lines: 42 Approved: military@att.att.com From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) Dear Adm Checkov, Your report is, more or less, correct. CIWS (aka Phalanx) and 4 canister-mounted Harpoon missiles are suppose to be installed on the 12 High Endurance Cutters (Hamilton Class, 278' LOA). The first two of these cutters have just emerged from a mid-life FRAM and are getting their sea legs back. In another year or so, they get a post-FRAM availability where the installations occur. The rest of the class follow as they complete their overhauls. As you noted, neither is terribly useful as law enforcement weapons. But adequate gunnery firepower remains: the 5" 38 cal gun forward is being replaced by a 76mm Oto Melara in FRAM and the fire control system is being upgraded from Mk 85 (??) to Mk 92 which is fairly standard on small Navy combatants and also is installed on the WMEC-270 class. The Coast Guard has wartime defense missions as well as the law enforcement and search & rescue ones. While I think the surface and anti-air missions are being too over-emphasized at the expense of ASW, the presence of military weapons for military missions has never been an issue. The military mission in the Coast Guard dates back to the Seminole War (~1803) where the formation of the Revenue Cutter Service dates from 1790 -- the origin of the law enforcement mission. The naval engineering problem of trading things off and reaching a satisfactory compromise -- a discussion here recently -- is more the issue than the weapons themselves. The WHECs at 378' are smaller than the smallest current Navy combatants (all FFs and FFGs are over 400'). Given the limited real estate and ability to accomodate topside weight, is it properly allocated to CIWS and Harpoon or is an enhanced ASW C3I or aircraft carrying capability more important? My own opinions happen to differ from those who made this decision, but it's easier to criticize than act, so caveat emptor. Rex Buddenberg [disclaimer: active duty CG]