In the interest of saving a big chunk of money, I think the Coast Guard and Navy should reconsider the proposed fitting of the 57 mm gun to the new Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC), and perhaps recycle existing Oto Melara 76mm Mk 75s instead.
If the Navy is going the stop supporting the Mk 75, we probably have no choice, but the 76mm is one of the most widely used weapons in the world. New developments including guided munitions and high velocity discarding sabot rounds are keeping it competitive.
STRALES system Oto Melara Munition Gives Naval Guns Low-Tech, ‘Nonlethal’ Precision
The two systems are very similar in weight and range, with the 76mm having a slight edge in range. The 57mm has a higher rate of fire, but this is balanced by the greater weight of the 76mm projectile.
It may not save the CG a lot in acquisition because, if it is like past programs, the Navy is buying the gun, but the Country has to pay for it, and the CG might benefit in having to retrain fewer people to maintain the weapons.
I think the choice of which is best boils down to what you think the critical threat we need to address is. If it is airplanes and cruise missiles or huge swarms of Iranian speedboats, the 57 mm might be better, but if you think you might have to sink a ship or hit targets ashore, then the 76 is probably better. Frankly I think the latter is more likely. For that reason I would actually prefer we mounted a 5″ Mk 45, but I don’t think that is going to happen.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
When was the last time we actually used a deck gun in an operational scenario? We could save a ton of money by putting an empty shell up there just to intimidate the bad guys. Or, we could realize that for 99% of our patrols, the deck gun is worse than useless, it is actually a time & money sink for maintenance. Design a modular system that allows a gun to be dropped into place if it is ever really needed (i.e. the unlikely event an OPC ever goes to war). For fisheries, MDA, and even drug patrols, a deck gun simply isn’t necessary. And if there’s something that really needs to be stopped (e.g. a terrorist hijacked ship), I’m sure the Navy or Air Force could easily and quickly put steel on target. There seems to be a lingering fascination with deck guns, but since the air craft carrier displaced the battleship in WWII, the need for deck guns, especially for the CG, is no longer there.
I like the modular approach for some weapons systems, so I hope we will design the OPC in such a way that it can use the modules designed for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) even if it takes two OPCs to handle a complete ASW or mine warfare (MIW) module. That way the Navy pays for the systems, maintains them, and provides the people.
Other things like a CIWS we could design the ship to accept at a future date in case it’s needed by fitting it “for but not with.” Even so, I like having the Phalanx because it provides a good close range ship stopper in the anti-surface mode.
I don’t think we can leave of the medium caliber gun until we need it. How frequently do we use our deck guns? About as often as the Navy. All the Cutters that went to Vietnam fired their 5″/38s in anger. Since then we have had at least one case (in the 80s I believe, sorry I don’t remember the details) where we tried to stop a fishing boat that was smuggling from entering another nation’s territorial waters. We fired into the boat with 25 mm, but were unable to stop it.
Stopping a ship requires a lot more ordnance then most people would believe. Consider how much was thrown at the Point Welcome (WPB 82329) in the “friendly fire” incident in Vietnam:
http://www.aug.edu/~libwrw/ptwelcome/PointWelcome2.html
As for the Navy or the Air Force coming to our aid if we should suddenly find ourselves in a fight, I hope I am wrong and perhaps someone will correct me on this, but I don’t think there are any attack aircraft on alert anywhere in the United States. Yes there are a few F-16s on alert, but they are armed to deal with other aircraft. If a US port were being attacked by ship, I doubt if we could get an attack aircraft of any kind to respond in less than two hours. Are there any agreements in place? Any promises of support? Have we practiced it?
Can’t happen? Ask the Indians about Mumbai.
As a cutterman become familiar with the term “fleet in being” and lose the myopia.
Might as well do away with life rafts too. I mean really, when was the last time one was needed?
As long as the Coast Guard sends ships into hostile areas such as the Persian Gulf they will need the ability to defend themselves.
From the end of WW II to Vietnam CG ships didn’t use their weapons. 20 years…..and then they needed them.
If the CG needs to shout “Navy, help me, help me!” then they should no longer be considered a military service. Since the CG IS a military service it needs to be equipped to act like one.
For our missions I agree the deck gun is not necessary but since we are the “hard nucleus in which the navy forms in times of war” its tough to advocate for a surface combatant without a main battery. 57 vs 76, that decision was pretty much made for us when the navy decided to decommision the Perry Class FFGs. we don’t have the capabilities to sustain our own program. I have not crawled arround a 57 turrent but I have crawled arround a 76 conducting PMS and pre-fire checks. The 76 was not the easiest system to maintain and certainly the MK92 fire control system. Both are due for retirement.
I would not recommending the Mk 92 fire control either, but we can use the same system that is on the National Security Cutter to control the 76 mm.
When was the last time we actually used a deck gun in an operational scenario? We could save a ton of money by putting an empty shell up there just to intimidate the bad guys. Or, we could realize that for 99% of our patrols, the deck gun is worse than useless, it is actually a time & money sink for maintenance. Design a modular system that allows a gun to be dropped into place if it is ever really needed (i.e. the unlikely event an OPC ever goes to war). For fisheries, MDA, and even drug patrols, a deck gun simply isn't necessary. And if there's something that really needs to be stopped (e.g. a terrorist hijacked ship), I'm sure the Navy or Air Force could easily and quickly put steel on target. There seems to be a lingering fascination with deck guns, but since the air craft carrier displaced the battleship in WWII, the need for deck guns, especially for the CG, is no longer there.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/06/01/somalia.strike/index.html
Cutterman,
The above link talks about a pirate shoot out in 2006 where the USN used one of its 5″ guns to stop a pirate ship. No doubt more of this stuff has happened since then.
It just isn’t cost effective to sink a vessel armed with RPGs and heavy machineguns (and yes, they can cause a lot of damage if they could hit anything) with a missile that cost sever hundred thousand dollars.
And yes, that has been a Navy/Coast Guard mission since the Barbary days. And still is.
For our missions I agree the deck gun is not necessary but since we are the “hard nucleus in which the navy forms in times of war” its tough to advocate for a surface combatant without a main battery. 57 vs 76, that decision was pretty much made for us when the navy decided to decommision the Perry Class FFGs. we don't have the capabilities to sustain our own program. I have not crawled arround a 57 turrent but I have crawled arround a 76 conducting PMS and pre-fire checks. The 76 was not the easiest system to maintain and certainly the MK92 fire control system. Both are due for retirement.
Cutterman, I spent 23 years in the Navy, and for the last 20 of them never once used a deck mounted weapon. Of course, those FIRST three years, …. Any weapon at all is a pain to maintain and an unnecessary expense — until you need it! Kinda like insurance. Instead of trying to compromise on one size in the middle, we should be thinking of one large and several small. Hey, when we merged the previous organizations, we didn’t become the US Coastal Rescue Service. Its Coast “Guard”. ‘Ya gotta have someting to guard with. When you focus too much on the day-to-day, you’re not going to like it when history repeats itself. The little Navy gunboat I was on had good reason to be thankful for the 5″ gun that USCGC Rush was mounting back when we were doing that thing called “Market Time”. My former service always talks about Littoral Warfare, but never really makes the effort. THEY figure that’s what we’re for.
Cutterman, I spent 23 years in the Navy, and for the last 20 of them never once used a deck mounted weapon. Of course, those FIRST three years, …. Any weapon at all is a pain to maintain and an unnecessary expense — until you need it! Kinda like insurance. Instead of trying to compromise on one size in the middle, we should be thinking of one large and several small. Hey, when we merged the previous organizations, we didn't become the US Coastal Rescue Service. Its Coast “Guard”. 'Ya gotta have someting to guard with. When you focus too much on the day-to-day, you're not going to like it when history repeats itself. The little Navy gunboat I was on had good reason to be thankful for the 5″ gun that USCGC Rush was mounting back when we were doing that thing called “Market Time”. My former service always talks about Littoral Warfare, but never really makes the effort. THEY figure that's what we're for.
Question, How come we don’t field something that is off the shelf and that is currently being used by other navies and Coast Guards around the world.
Question, How come we don't field something that is off the shelf and that is currently being used by other navies and Coast Guards around the world.
Nicky asked: “How come we don’t field something that is off the shelf and that is currently being used by other navies and Coast Guards around the world.”
I presume you are talking about the cutter rather than the gun? I think the intention is to base the OPC on an existing design. We did have a good discussion about that previously here:
http://www.cgblog.org/2010/01/04/design-an-offshore-patrol-cutter-today/#disqus_thread
Even if based on another design, the OPC won’t be a duplicate.
What I meant was both the cutter and the Gun. How come we don’t field something that is readily available. Such as for example for the OPC and the WMEC, how come we don’t field something that is currently being used and off the shelf. Such as looking at what is currently being used by other Navies around the world. As with the Gun, We should be looking at one that is readily available and that can be used right now.
Both the 57 mm and the 76 mm are in service with the US Navy now.
The 57mm/70 is based on a Swedish design that goes back to 1962. It is used by 12 countries and it in turn is based on a gun that goes back to WWII.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_57_mm_gun
The 76 mm, an Italian design, was first produced in 1964. It is used by 40 different countries and is probably the most popular medium caliber gun in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otobreda_76_mm
So either way the gun is off the shelf.
Between the Bofors 57MM gun MK3 and the 76 MM gun, Which one would you prefer to take out on Patrol with. Also have you considered the Mk 110 57 mm gun. Also would you consider putting either the Mk 110 57 mm gun, Bofors 57MM gun MK3 and the 76 MM gun on the OPV to replace the WMEC.
Also check out the Royal Netherlands Navy new OPV. I think the US Coast Guard should seriously send someone to take a look at this design and even buy some of this ship to replace the 210’s and 270’s. It’s the Royal Netherlands Navy Holland Class OPV.
The Mk 110 is the American version of the latest edition of the Bofors 57mm. It is included in the notional design of the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC)
We should field a common gun to what our Navy will field. Anything else seems to lack common sense. From training to parts to ammunition to fire control, commonality will save us long term. And I disagree with the shore fires argument. A high rate of fire in the littorals in my opinion is far more likely a scenario than is shore bombardment (Navy has Tomahawks and F-18’s for that).
I agree that we need a gun that the Navy supports, that is why I included the Navy in the rethink.
The 76mm does have a pretty high rate of fire, 80 round/min.
As for Shore Bombardment. During the Vietnam conflict the Navy and Air Force were there in force. There were A-1s, A-3s, A-4s, A-6s, A-7s, F-4s, F-105s, B-26s, B-66s, even B-52s, lots of destroyers, gunned cruisers, even battleships, and many more carriers than the Navy has now, but the Coast Guard ships still got call for fire. Even the 82s were doing shore bomb.
One other note. It is always easier to make a large caliber round smart (make it guided or give it a smart fuse) than a smaller round, and it is more useful to do so.
I know, but that WAS 40 some years ago. I just don’t see the CG getting pulled into that sorta scenario in this day and age.
I like the modular approach for some weapons systems, so I hope we will design the OPC in such a way that it can use the modules designed for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) even if it takes two OPCs to handle a complete ASW or mine warfare (MIW) module. That way the Navy pays for the systems, maintains them, and provides the people. Other things like a CIWS we could design the ship to accept at a future date in case it's needed by fitting it “for but not with.” Even so, I like having the Phalanx because it provides a good close range ship stopper in the anti-surface mode. I don't think we can leave of the medium caliber gun until we need it. How frequently do we use our deck guns? About as often as the Navy. All the Cutters that went to Vietnam fired their 5″/38s in anger. Since then we have had at least one case (in the 80s I believe, sorry I don't remember the details) where we tried to stop a fishing boat that was smuggling from entering another nation's territorial waters. We fired into the boat with 25 mm, but were unable to stop it. Stopping a ship requires a lot more ordnance then most people would believe. Consider how much was thrown at the Point Welcome (WPB 82329) in the “friendly fire” incident in Vietnam:http://www.aug.edu/~libwrw/ptwelcome/PointWelco…As for the Navy or the Air Force coming to our aid if we should suddenly find ourselves in a fight, I hope I am wrong and perhaps someone will correct me on this, but I don't think there are any attack aircraft on alert anywhere in the United States. Yes there are a few F-16s on alert, but they are armed to deal with other aircraft. If a US port were being attacked by ship, I doubt if we could get an attack aircraft of any kind to respond in less than two hours. Are there any agreements in place? Any promises of support? Have we practiced it?Can't happen? Ask the Indians about Mumbai.
Nicky asked: “How come we don't field something that is off the shelf and that is currently being used by other navies and Coast Guards around the world.”I presume you are talking about the cutter rather than the gun? I think the intention is to base the OPC on an existing design. We did have a good discussion about that previously here:http://www.cgblog.org/2010/01/04/design-an-offs…Even if based on another design, the OPC won't be a duplicate.
I would not recommending the Mk 92 fire control either, but we can use the same system that is on the National Security Cutter to control the 76 mm.
We should field a common gun to what our Navy will field. Anything else seems to lack common sense. From training to parts to ammunition to fire control, commonality will save us long term. And I disagree with the shore fires argument. A high rate of fire in the littorals in my opinion is far more likely a scenario than is shore bombardment (Navy has Tomahawks and F-18's for that).
What I meant was both the cutter and the Gun. How come we don't field something that is readily available. Such as for example for the OPC and the WMEC, how come we don't field something that is currently being used and off the shelf. Such as looking at what is currently being used by other Navies around the world. As with the Gun, We should be looking at one that is readily available and that can be used right now.
Both the 57 mm and the 76 mm are in service with the US Navy now. The 57mm/70 is based on a Swedish design that goes back to 1962. It is used by 12 countries and it in turn is based on a gun that goes back to WWII. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_57_mm_gunThe 76 mm, an Italian design, was first produced in 1964. It is used by 40 different countries and is probably the most popular medium caliber gun in history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otobreda_76_mmSo either way the gun is off the shelf.
I agree that we need a gun that the Navy supports, that is why I included the Navy in the rethink. The 76mm does have a pretty high rate of fire, 80 round/min. As for Shore Bombardment. During the Vietnam conflict the Navy and Air Force were there in force. There were A-1s, A-3s, A-4s, A-6s, A-7s, F-4s, F-105s, B-26s, B-66s, even B-52s, lots of destroyers, gunned cruisers, even battleships, and many more carriers than the Navy has now, but the Coast Guard ships still got call for fire. Even the 82s were doing shore bomb. One other note. It is always easier to make a large caliber round smart (make it guided or give it a smart fuse) than a smaller round, and it is more useful to do so.
Hey all,
First off, nice post Chuck. Short, sweet, and to the point.
Second, I concur with several of the previous comments. I just don’t see a reason for us to have large ordnance onboard our major cutters. Yes we need interoperability with the Navy, but they are NOT going to turn to us for long distance bombardment. The Navy has a hard enough time justifying their own surface hardware in the age of aircraft carriers. At the end of the day, the primary requirements for Coast Guard cutters are:
1. Staying power… the ability to go somewhere (not necessarily fast) and stay there for a long time.
2. Flight deck… the ability to launch, recover, refuel, and repair helicopters.
3. Small boats… the ability to launch, recover, refuel, and repair small boats.
That’s it. When the CG projects power, our major cutters are nothing but a means of coordinating Command & Control, delivering a boarding team, or launching a bird. All of the missions conducted by our major cutters are just variations on those three capabilities. I’m not sure how a giant hood ornament figures into that.
Sincerely,
Brad Soule
Hey all,First off, nice post Chuck. Short, sweet, and to the point.Second, I concur with several of the previous comments. I just don't see a reason for us to have large ordnance onboard our major cutters. Yes we need interoperability with the Navy, but they are NOT going to turn to us for long distance bombardment. The Navy has a hard enough time justifying their own surface hardware in the age of aircraft carriers. At the end of the day, the primary requirements for Coast Guard cutters are:1. Staying power… the ability to go somewhere (not necessarily fast) and stay there for a long time.2. Flight deck… the ability to launch, recover, refuel, and repair helicopters.3. Small boats… the ability to launch, recover, refuel, and repair small boats.That's it. When the CG projects power, our major cutters are nothing but a means of coordinating Command & Control, delivering a boarding team, or launching a bird. All of the missions conducted by our major cutters are just variations on those three capabilities. I'm not sure how a giant hood ornament figures into that.Sincerely,Brad Soule
I’ve not had personal experience with the 76mm, but a good friend was CO of both a 270 and 378. I asked him about this issue one day – why was the CG going to a smaller deck gun, and he was unequivocal in his disgust for the 76mm. I said but wait – it’s a widely used weapon – it can’t be that bad. He said that unfortunately, it was. It seems that the 76mm we bought was made under license, and didn’t have the same tolerances as the original, and as such was a maintenance pig.
I wasn’t a fan of the 57mm at first, but I’d rather have a smaller gun that works than a larger gun that doesn’t.
I've not had personal experience with the 76mm, but a good friend was CO of both a 270 and 378. I asked him about this issue one day – why was the CG going to a smaller deck gun, and he was unequivocal in his disgust for the 76mm. I said but wait – it's a widely used weapon – it can't be that bad. He said that unfortunately, it was. It seems that the 76mm we bought was made under license, and didn't have the same tolerances as the original, and as such was a maintenance pig.I wasn't a fan of the 57mm at first, but I'd rather have a smaller gun that works than a larger gun that doesn't.
Between the Bofors 57MM gun MK3 and the 76 MM gun, Which one would you prefer to take out on Patrol with. Also have you considered the Mk 110 57 mm gun. Also would you consider putting either the Mk 110 57 mm gun, Bofors 57MM gun MK3 and the 76 MM gun on the OPV to replace the WMEC. Also check out the Royal Netherlands Navy new OPV. I think the US Coast Guard should seriously send someone to take a look at this design and even buy some of this ship to replace the 210's and 270's. It's the Royal Netherlands Navy Holland Class OPV.http://www.fixxpro.nl/cms5/upload/images/Patrou…
I would second Chuck’s notes above. In addition there is nothing wrong with using a ship/cutter design which is proven in service or comes from a reputable ship design naval architecture company, like the Damen designed FRC. The USCG is good a buying foreign designed systems, maybe not so good at keeping them going?
An interesting writeup about the Dutch OPV’s:
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/03/holland-class-opvs-will-need-change.html
What I really find interesting about some of the new OPVs is the hybrid power plant. Like most modern cruise ships they use a diesel electric system with the motors in the rudder/power pods. Big propulsion diesels provide maximum speed, but ships service generators can propel the ships at modest cruise speeds. Two main Diesels and four generators could provide a lot of flexibility and redundancy of a wide range of speeds.
I would second Chuck's notes above. In addition there is nothing wrong with using a ship/cutter design which is proven in service or comes from a reputable ship design naval architecture company, like the Damen designed FRC. The USCG is good a buying foreign designed systems, maybe not so good at keeping them going?
I know, but that WAS 40 some years ago. I just don't see the CG getting pulled into that sorta scenario in this day and age.
The reason we need a weapon that can stop a ship is due to our peacetime, counter-terrorism responsibilities. We could use torpedoes, other types of guns, or a lot of different missiles, but a medium caliber gun is the “default” solution. Virtually every Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) in the world has got one.
What we envision as possible war time roles might influence the choice of weapons, as does what the Navy has to offer.
I am not sure what “medium” caliber gun means. In 1941, Boatswain (WO) Early “Porky” Jones took a six-bitter (75-foot) out of Gulfport, Mississippi, and “stopped” a 50K French tanker from escaping to the open sea. His main gun was a one-pounder from the 1920s. He promised the French captain to fire the first round on the bridge.
Jones was quite a character according to some of his 1930s pistol teammates.
Obviously not what I was referring to in terms of stopping. I was thinking in terms of a maritime version of a suicide truck bomber determined to get to his objective, and willing to give his life to do it.
(Sure it was not a 5,000 ton tanker. 50,000 would have been huge back then.)
An interesting writeup about the Dutch OPV's:http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/03…
The reason we need a weapon that can stop a ship is due to our peacetime, counter-terrorism responsibilities. We could use torpedoes, other types of guns, or a lot of different missiles, but a medium caliber gun is the “default” solution. Virtually every Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) in the world has got one. What we envision as possible war time roles might influence the choice of weapons, as does what the Navy has to offer.
What I really find interesting about some of the new OPVs is the hybrid power plant. Like most modern cruise ships they use a diesel electric system with the motors in the rudder/power pods. Big propulsion diesels provide maximum speed, but ships service generators can propel the ships at modest cruise speeds. Two main Diesels and four generators could provide a lot of flexibility and redundancy of a wide range of speeds.
The mention of Point Welcome brings up one missed point. The fast movers can’t hit a moving target. I can say the same for fast moving ships even with some computer. BTW, thanks for the plug for my article.
The 76mm is a doomed system and has been for years in the United States. The only active class of Navy vessels to use it was the FFG. (See another article http://www.aug.edu/~libwrw/Articles/FFG.pdf ) I believe this year is the last year for the FFG and with it USN support including ammunition. If the Coast Guard continued to use this system, then it would have to pay for it all by itself and everyone knows who cheap the Coast Guard is when it comes to anything with a military readiness application.
This is an old discussion, mostly discussed by people who have never fired a shot “in anger.” It also one the Coast Guard has had for a couple centuries. For example,
In the 1890s the Coast Guard (RCS) still used muzzle loading cannon. They got them free from the navy and army. Had it not been for the Spanish-American war the RCS would not have gained any modern deck guns at all (the service as always purchased its own small arms).
The RCS went from 2″ gun (six-pounders) to 4″ guns to 3″ guns with an addition of newer models of the 3″50 then to 5″/25 and 5’/51 then to 5″/38 and the MK12 3″/50. There was a short-lived use of 5″38 twin mounts on the 255s and 1960s ice breakers with a quicker use of the 3″/70. With the 76mm the Coast Guard merely turned back to another 3″ gun and with the NSC the Coast Guard repeats the 2″ gun.
Of course, everyone knows the only reason the Coast Guard got the 76mm was because of a CWO (WEPS) who loved gadgets and was in the right place as the right time to push it in the 378 FRAM. However, the Coast Guard with some little thought could removed the 5″/38 and with far cheaper modification (not having to build a very ugly extension to the superstructure) and dropped on a light weight MK 45 5″/54 that could have lead to the lighter 5″/62.
This would have kept Coast Guard gunner’s mate in the “gun” business instead of where they are today. I know everyone says the 76mm was a needed improvement, but I find it very odd that no improved ammunition system from the magazine was developed as well. The 378s use the same dredger hoist used in WWII. This just shows the if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
The Coast Guard has very little of it military readiness culture left. And this is why guns should be maintained. I recall a very funny remark from a CO of a 378 at Haiti during the 1994 “invasion.” He said he was standing by to provide “gunfire support.” I laughed out loud. What was he going to use? At the time, and I don’t know if it was ever obtained, but the 76mm had no NGFS capability. Besides, just how many Coast Guard “Weapons Officers” have been trained on this type of exercise? So, will some CO of a NSC be able to stand off sure and provide gun support?
Oh yes, I forgot. The Coast Guard used to have wide experience with BoFors. The 40mm was a standard anti-aircraft and surface gun. That’s just a silly 17 millimeters smaller.
This is a funny thread.
There are still about 30 FFGs in commission. Current plan is to decommission them when they reach 30 years service which would see the last decommisioned in 2019. They are really only “FF”s now since the missile launcher has been removed.
Even though the 76mm is far from an ideal weapon for NGFS, because of its small size, the FFGs do have a requirement to exercise the capability and the Israelis have been using it for NGFS with some success, but then it is their largest naval gun.
I would also have preferred to see the 5″/38s on the 378s replaced by 5″/54s since they were designed as a drop in replacement, but the fire control also needed replacing. Even so, the Mk92 should have been able to control the 5″/54 as well.
The US Navy has about 80 cruisers and destroyers with the 5” gun, but they are all multipurpose ships and their AAW and ASW missions work against their being in position to do NGFS. Presumably why the FFGs got the NGFS mission.
The Littoral Combat Ships are supposed to have the option of a small light weight missile (the NLOS) with an NGFS capability that should be quickly adaptable to almost any ship (even the FRC):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLOS-LS
but it has been having problems lately and the cost is higher than expected.
When I wrote my article in 1998, I was a PACE instructor aboard USS Samuel B. Roberts for a couple months in and around the Persian Gulf and Middle East. I had a number of conversations with the CO about an article written for Proceeding by a Dr. Grey (I believe) about the Coast Guard taking them over and the they were slated to be all decommissioned by 2010.
I have not kept up on their status. I suppose because of the “war” and the lack of a suitable replacement that will work, they were extended. There material condition was not very good in 1998 and probably isn’t much better. These ships were built rather cheaply too. Being the “civilian” on board, people would talk to me about nearly anything non-classified.
I was not aware that the SSM had been removed. I was very old technology (originally the old Tartar single arm system). Maintenance on it aboard an FFG was tough because of its position forward. The 76mm really sits on the 02 level midships and has the same range of movement as a 19th century pivot gun–maybe less. However, the FFG does have sonar. One of the ASW systems on board was the same one the Coast Guard used. However, since it is good for shallow waters, it was a good system to look for mines which is what the STs did in the Persian Gulf.
As for navy cruisers and such, they played a bit of shell game to get more appropriations to built more ships. The ship I served from 1964-66 was a DLG. Some of this class were converted to “cruiser” status to show a deficit of destroyers. Heck, they even changed her hull number. Perhaps the Coast Guard should do that. Re designate its ships and complain they don’t have what the need.
Also the crew knew about Roberts but had never heard of Douglas Munro. I got them a copy of the historical painting for their QD display.
I read your article. When they were new (1982) I had a article published in the Naval War College Review that suggested that some of the FFGs be given to the Coast Guard since at the time the concept was that they were being built as escorts for the coming big one with the Soviets, not as Carrier Battle Group escorts.
At least one of them just got a new stabilized 25mm mounted on top of the missile casement.
I think you are referring to the designation change from “destroyer leader” to “frigate” to “cruiser” that some of the earlier Navy ships went through. I don’t think that applies to any of the current cruisers even though they are built on the same hull as the Spruance class destroyers which for some reason have all already been decommissioned.
Chuck, It there a link to the article in the NCWR?
None that I am aware of. It was the January-February 1983 issue, p. 41, “What the Coast Guard Needs: Cutters that Count.”
No longer useful anyway. Overtaken by events. The rational was largely that the the country would need the FFGs for convoy escort in wartime, but the navy basically did not need them in peacetime, so why not let the CG use them.
Perhaps but I like the history. Knowing the thinking of the past helps to understand the present. This is why I try to find and read the master’s theses of the commandants (if they did one). Their thoughts as younger and more junior officers carry over into the “star” years.
It would seem that your title is applicable to today. Perhaps another article for Proceedings. They like this sort of article.
I did a “Nobody Asked Me, But” for Prodeedings, accepted but it hasn’t been published. If they are not going to use it, I will publish it here.
“I think you are referring to the designation change from “destroyer leader” to “frigate” to “cruiser” that some of the earlier Navy ships went through.”
Some of the DLGs were redesignated DDGs. When the navy wanted the “new” cruisers, they decommissioned the redesignated DLGs and like destroyers complained they had too few. It was a shell game. BTW, the DLG was 512 feet in length. I noticed today some of the destroyers are some 600 feet about that of old battleships.
A Burke class destroyer might as well be called a cruiser. They are actually better protected than the Ticonderoga class cruisers.
The mention of Point Welcome brings up one missed point. The fast movers can't hit a moving target. I can say the same for fast moving ships even with some computer. BTW, thanks for the plug for my article.The 76mm is a doomed system and has been for years in the United States. The only active class of Navy vessels to use it was the FFG. (See another article http://www.aug.edu/~libwrw/Articles/FFG.pdf ) I believe this year is the last year for the FFG and with it USN support including ammunition. If the Coast Guard continued to use this system, then it would have to pay for it all by itself and everyone knows who cheap the Coast Guard is when it comes to anything with a military readiness application. This is an old discussion, mostly discussed by people who have never fired a shot “in anger.” It also one the Coast Guard has had for a couple centuries. For example,In the 1890s the Coast Guard (RCS) still used muzzle loading cannon. They got them free from the navy and army. Had it not been for the Spanish-American war the RCS would not have gained any modern deck guns at all (the service as always purchased its own small arms).The RCS went from 2″ gun (six-pounders) to 4″ guns to 3″ guns with an addition of newer models of the 3″50 then to 5″/25 and 5'/51 then to 5″/38 and the MK12 3″/50. There was a short-lived use of 5″38 twin mounts on the 255s and 1960s ice breakers with a quicker use of the 3″/70. With the 76mm the Coast Guard merely turned back to another 3″ gun and with the NSC the Coast Guard repeats the 2″ gun. Of course, everyone knows the only reason the Coast Guard got the 76mm was because of a CWO (WEPS) who loved gadgets and was in the right place as the right time to push it in the 378 FRAM. However, the Coast Guard with some little thought could removed the 5″/38 and with far cheaper modification (not having to build a very ugly extension to the superstructure) and dropped on a light weight MK 45 5″/54 that could have lead to the lighter 5″/62. This would have kept Coast Guard gunner's mate in the “gun” business instead of where they are today. I know everyone says the 76mm was a needed improvement, but I find it very odd that no improved ammunition system from the magazine was developed as well. The 378s use the same dredger hoist used in WWII. This just shows the if it ain't broke don't fix it.The Coast Guard has very little of it military readiness culture left. And this is why guns should be maintained. I recall a very funny remark from a CO of a 378 at Haiti during the 1994 “invasion.” He said he was standing by to provide “gunfire support.” I laughed out loud. What was he going to use? At the time, and I don't know if it was ever obtained, but the 76mm had no NGFS capability. Besides, just how many Coast Guard “Weapons Officers” have been trained on this type of exercise? So, will some CO of a NSC be able to stand off sure and provide gun support? Oh yes, I forgot. The Coast Guard used to have wide experience with BoFors. The 40mm was a standard anti-aircraft and surface gun. That's just a silly 17 millimeters smaller.This is a funny thread.
There are still about 30 FFGs in commission. Current plan is to decommission them when they reach 30 years service which would see the last decommisioned in 2019. They are really only “FF”s now since the missile launcher has been removed. Even though the 76mm is far from an ideal weapon for NGFS, because of its small size, the FFGs do have a requirement to exercise the capability and the Israelis have been using it for NGFS with some success, but then it is their largest naval gun. I would also have preferred to see the 5″/38s on the 378s replaced by 5″/54s since they were designed as a drop in replacement, but the fire control also needed replacing. Even so, the Mk92 should have been able to control the 5″/54 as well. The US Navy has about 80 cruisers and destroyers with the 5” gun, but they are all multipurpose ships and their AAW and ASW missions work against their being in position to do NGFS. Presumably why the FFGs got the NGFS mission. The Littoral Combat Ships are supposed to have the option of a small light weight missile (the NLOS) with an NGFS capability that should be quickly adaptable to almost any ship (even the FRC):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLOS-LSbut it has been having problems lately and the cost is higher than expected.
When I wrote my article in 1998, I was a PACE instructor aboard USS Samuel B. Roberts for a couple months in and around the Persian Gulf and Middle East. I had a number of conversations with the CO about an article written for Proceeding by a Dr. Grey (I believe) about the Coast Guard taking them over and the they were slated to be all decommissioned by 2010.I have not kept up on their status. I suppose because of the “war” and the lack of a suitable replacement that will work, they were extended. There material condition was not very good in 1998 and probably isn't much better. These ships were built rather cheaply too. Being the “civilian” on board, people would talk to me about nearly anything non-classified. I was not aware that the SSM had been removed. I was very old technology (originally the old Tartar single arm system). Maintenance on it aboard an FFG was tough because of its position forward. The 76mm really sits on the 02 level midships and has the same range of movement as a 19th century pivot gun–maybe less. However, the FFG does have sonar. One of the ASW systems on board was the same one the Coast Guard used. However, since it is good for shallow waters, it was a good system to look for mines which is what the STs did in the Persian Gulf. As for navy cruisers and such, they played a bit of shell game to get more appropriations to built more ships. The ship I served from 1964-66 was a DLG. Some of this class were converted to “cruiser” status to show a deficit of destroyers. Heck, they even changed her hull number. Perhaps the Coast Guard should do that. Re designate its ships and complain they don't have what the need. Also the crew knew about Roberts but had never heard of Douglas Munro. I got them a copy of the historical painting for their QD display.
I read your article. When they were new (1982) I had a article published in the Naval War College Review that suggested that some of the FFGs be given to the Coast Guard since at the time the concept was that they were being built as escorts for the coming big one with the Soviets, not as Carrier Battle Group escorts. At least one of them just got a new stabilized 25mm mounted on top of the missile casement. I think you are referring to the designation change from “destroyer leader” to “frigate” to “cruiser” that some of the earlier Navy ships went through. I don't think that applies to any of the current cruisers even though they are built on the same hull as the Spruance class destroyers which for some reason have all already been decommissioned.
George Santayana wrote of history that those not remembering it; repeat it.
The RCS adopted the 57mm Hotchkiss in the 1890s as a secondary gun. Today they are returning to a 57mm gun as the primary system. However, the purpose’s for adoption were very different between the eras.
Certain sizes seem to keep repeating, even though the guns are very different. 76.2 mm is 3″, 57 mm is 2.25″. The projectiles are roughly 54-70 pounds for 5″/127mm, 32 pounds for 4″/102mm, 12 for 3″/76 mm, 6 pounds for 57mm, 2 pounds for 40mm. There is of course variability in that.
In terms of sinking a ship with gun fire, in very rough terms, it takes about a pound of ordnance to sink a ton of ship. Big variations in that of course.
Chuck,
Total projectile weight is approximately twice the total explosive weight. It is the explosive that causes damage. The briance, or shattering effect, is what does the deed. Then again, hitting the target in the right place makes the difference. I seem to recall the navy trying to sink a merchant vessel on the west coast and they finally had to bring in a submarine to finish the job.
I do know that no amount of ordnance will sink a basket boat.
Actually the bursting charge may be as little as 10% of the weight, but fragments do damage as well as blast.
Think about it though. a 10,000 ton ship, on average would take about 185 Five inch projectiles. Usually you can get a mission kill with only one pound per 10 tons. When you start getting into really big ships it gets ridiculous unless you get a secondary explosion.
The 82s crippled a couple steel hull trawlers with a 13 pound 81mm mortar.
The bursting (igniter) charge and the shattering effect of an explosive are two different things.
I believe the best example of what it takes to sink a ship was during WWII when destroyers took on larger class Japanese vessels. Big guns, sink little ships.
Secondary explosions are more of a fluke than a target. However, they work just as well.
The destroyers only hope of doing serious damage was using torpedoes.
I know. I had the ‘pleasure’ of taking an 82′ alongside (underway) of USS St. Paul a couple times (we’d take their mail in and we’d get ice cream). She had the 12″ thick torpedo belt just above the waterline. The guys put some fenders way low to keep me off it.
I sure did like to watch those 8″ guns work. However, they had to rearm and refuel every night. Hard work done there. We got to fill in once as the DMZ gunfire support ‘ship.’ We even got to shoot. Our limited range was only good of close targets but the Marines liked anything they could get.
Hard for me to believe that one 5″ projectile (weight of about 54 lbs) can sink a 50 ton ship. Took a lot more then that on the trawlers that came under fire in Nam.
Like I said it is rough, but on average a 5″ would usually sink a 50 ton ship, but 50 tons is smaller than an 82.
Plus of course it may take some time to sink during which there may be shooting from both sides.
George Santayana wrote of history that those not remembering it; repeat it. The RCS adopted the 57mm Hotchkiss in the 1890s as a secondary gun. Today they are returning to a 57mm gun as the primary system. However, the purpose's for adoption were very different between the eras.
Chuck, It there a link to the article in the NCWR?
None that I am aware of. It was the January-February 1983 issue, p. 41, “What the Coast Guard Needs: Cutters that Count.”No longer useful anyway. Overtaken by events. The rational was largely that the the country would need the FFGs for convoy escort in wartime, but the navy basically did not need them in peacetime, so why not let the CG use them.
Perhaps but I like the history. Knowing the thinking of the past helps to understand the present. This is why I try to find and read the master's theses of the commandants (if they did one). Their thoughts as younger and more junior officers carry over into the “star” years. It would seem that your title is applicable to today. Perhaps another article for Proceedings. They like this sort of article.
I am not sure what “medium” caliber gun means. In 1941, Boatswain (WO) Early “Porky” Jones took a six-bitter (75-foot) out of Gulfport, Mississippi, and “stopped” a 50K French tanker from escaping to the open sea. His main gun was a one-pounder from the 1920s. He promised the French captain to fire the first round on the bridge. Jones was quite a character according to some of his 1930s pistol teammates.
I did a “Nobody Asked Me, But” for Prodeedings, accepted but it hasn't been published. If they are not going to use it, I will publish it here.
Certain sizes seem to keep repeating, even though the guns are very different. 76.2 mm is 3″, 57 mm is 2.25″. The projectiles are roughly 54-70 pounds for 5″/127mm, 32 pounds for 4″/102mm, 12 for 3″/76 mm, 6 pounds for 57mm, 2 pounds for 40mm. There is of course variability in that.In terms of sinking a ship with gun fire, in very rough terms, it takes about a pound of ordnance to sink a ton of ship. Big variations in that of course.
Chuck,Total projectile weight is approximately twice the total explosive weight. It is the explosive that causes damage. The briance, or shattering effect, is what does the deed. Then again, hitting the target in the right place makes the difference. I seem to recall the navy trying to sink a merchant vessel on the west coast and they finally had to bring in a submarine to finish the job. I do know that no amount of ordnance will sink a basket boat.
Hard for me to believe that one 5″ projectile (weight of about 54 lbs) can sink a 50 ton ship. Took a lot more then that on the trawlers that came under fire in Nam.
Like I said it is rough, but on average a 5″ would usually sink a 50 ton ship, but 50 tons is smaller than an 82.Plus of course it may take some time to sink during which there may be shooting from both sides.
Actually the bursting charge may be as little as 10% of the weight, but fragments do damage as well as blast. Think about it though. a 10,000 ton ship, on average would take about 185 Five inch projectiles. Usually you can get a mission kill with only one pound per 10 tons. When you start getting into really big ships it gets ridiculous unless you get a secondary explosion.
The 82s crippled a couple steel hull trawlers with a 13 pound 81mm mortar. The bursting (igniter) charge and the shattering effect of an explosive are two different things. I believe the best example of what it takes to sink a ship was during WWII when destroyers took on larger class Japanese vessels. Big guns, sink little ships. Secondary explosions are more of a fluke than a target. However, they work just as well.
The destroyers only hope of doing serious damage was using torpedoes.
I know. I had the 'pleasure' of taking an 82' alongside (underway) of USS St. Paul a couple times (we'd take their mail in and we'd get ice cream). She had the 12″ thick torpedo belt just above the waterline. The guys put some fenders way low to keep me off it. I sure did like to watch those 8″ guns work. However, they had to rearm and refuel every night. Hard work done there. We got to fill in once as the DMZ gunfire support 'ship.' We even got to shoot. Our limited range was only good of close targets but the Marines liked anything they could get.
That gun was and is a horrifically overcomplicated piece of crap! We had 3 gunners mates put more TLC into that thing working 7 hours a day for a week, and then during REFTRA, it crapped out after only 2 shots. I got to see the 57 up close, and it is a VERY modern yet simplistic gun system it reminds you a little of some of the deck AA armaments of WWII ships. We never needed or wanted the ability to fire so many huge shells like the 76mm at such a rate of fire. Good riddance to that thing.
First of all 76mm is not huge. It is relatively small and originally conceived for AA work. The 5″/38 had more moving parts and it worked fine.
The Coast Guard had its relative 40mm for decades. Yep, it is a simple system. Then again perhaps today’s GMs need simple. The 57mm is not that “modern” and it is has direct kinship of those WWII weapons.
It has been around since 1981 in various forms. However, look at the size vessels it is being used around the world and then look at the Coast Guard. I also found it funny that it is possibly the first gun the Coast Guard has had with a foreskin. This is an internet remark about it, “The stealth variant has a reduced radar profile, in part by hiding the gun barrel when it is not firing.”