Oto Melara has developed a new extended range, guided projectile for the 76mm with a range of up to 40 kilometers or almost 22 nautical miles.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog
Oto Melara has developed a new extended range, guided projectile for the 76mm with a range of up to 40 kilometers or almost 22 nautical miles.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
I still think it was a mistake not to go with the improved OTO Melara Super Rapido 76mm gun for the NSC and the LCS. It’s ironic that while the NSC is superior to the 378’s in almost every other way, that the 378’s are still more heavily armed than the NSC with their 76mm and 2x25mm guns and were ASW capable until the mid to late 90’s . I still don’t understand what the NSC’s wartime role would be in regards to combat capability or operating with a CVBG. Last time I checked we were still an armed sea going military service. The NSC is a fine ship but awfully expensive for a lightly armed patrol vessel! JMO
The Coast Guard has to follow the Navy, but I believe the Navy made a mistake in moving to the 57mm instead of continuing improvement of the 76mm. Because the 76mm is so widely used, there is a strong market for improvements that should drive innovation. When it was chosen, the 57mm apparently had an advantage as a missile defense weapon, but such advantages are temporary and any technological improvements that can be made to a smaller round to make it smarter and more efficient can also be applied to a larger round, but the reverse is not true. Also, while higher rate of fire may offer some theoretical advantage in AAW; advantage in shore bombardment or anti-surface, which the Coast Guard is more likely to be involved in, usually goes to the heavier round.
As a former FT (barstool, baby), I can tell you that the 57mm is about an equal AA gun, but is definitely lacking when it comes to surface warfare. And don’t even get me started on NGFS. We did some NGFS in Vieques before they closed that place with our Mk.75. A whole lot of fun it was, taking spotting corrections and inputting them into the Mk. 92 system.
The 57mm is a freaking pop gun. The NSC needs some more punch for sure.
As for Munro’s name going on a NSC, I’m very pleased about that.
The Coast Guard should never had gone with the 76mm in the first place. It was a former FT who pushed for it. He just loved gadgets. It cost a pretty penny to rebuild the 378s to take it on when a light weight 5″/54 could have been easily used and with later updates to the 5″/62. After all, the same magazine hoist systems for the 5″/38 were not changed. The upside for the 76mm was that the magazines of the 378 could hold much more ammunition but still not as much as the old 311s.
I see the 57mm as a giant leap backwards. The Revenue Cutter Service was tickled to get the new rapid fire 6-pounders on their new turn of the 20th century cutters. A 6-pounder was, you guessed it, 57mm.
Actually I would have preferred to see the new cutters, including the Offshore Patrol Cutter, equipped with 5″ Mk45s. The original 5″/54 mk 45 was a drop in replacement for the 5″/38. They currently being updated to Mk4s:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bae-systems-receives-orders-for-63-million-to-deliver-seven-mk-45-gun-system-upgrades-to-the-us-navy-2011-09-28?reflink=MW_news_stmp
The 5″ would have been more effective as a “ship stopper” against the potential threat of a maritime suicide truck bomb. Additional it could have given the ships a wartime role as a dedicated NGFS (naval gun fire support) platform that would have been very much welcomed by the Marines.
The question should not be what size is the pop gun on the foc’sle is. But if we are going to have a real defenced capability on the NSC. I am talking about things like ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missles) and RAMS (Rolling Airframed Missle Systems). Also a keel mounted sonar system along with MK32 torpedo tubes and fire control would be nice.
I am wondering when is the US Coast Guard going to start getting Frigate weapons and systems for their NSC. I think when they upgrade the NSC to frigate standards they should include ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missles) and RAMS (Rolling Airframed Missile Systems), MK32 torpedo tubes, keel mounted sonar and Harpoon missile capability. That way the US Coast Guard can have a cutter that can travel with the US Navy Carrier battle group and Amphibious expeditionary group, when needed.
FFG is not that that heavily armed. I would suggest actually visiting one before spouting off about things you have no clue about. I have spent quite a bit of time on one and was less than impressed, and neither were the sailors serving aboard either.
Oh I have visited Frigates and especially ones from Europe and Asia including the ones from Thailand. That’s why I believe the US is losing out on the Frigate program and should just revamp their Frigate program and look to Europe for Frigate Design Ideas that the US Can use to build theirs. At least with Euro frigates, that have littoral capability that the US can only Dream of.
Nicky, we realize you’ve visited warships. Have you ever served on one?
Although dated, this is what I learned from my short two months aboard a FFG in the Persian Gulf.
Click to access FFG.pdf
Bill,
I think the US Coast Guard should have gone with a Frigate like ship. Buying European designs and building it in the US. The reason for that is because someday if we ever go to war, the US Coast Guard can have a cutter that can deploy with a Carrier battle group, Surface Action Group or an amphibious expeditionary group. We can have a frigate up to Navy frigate standards and still be operated by the US Coast Guard. That would mean having all the Frigate weapons and systems for the US Coast Guard and be used in case the US Coast Guard is being deployed with a Navy Battle group.
That’s why I am a firm believer that the US Coast Guard should have gone with a Frigate like ship for one of those in case we ever have to deploy with the US navy. Have all the standard Frigate equipment including ESSM, RAMS, Harpoon, Otobreda 76 mm, Mk 48 torpedoes and a M242 Bushmaster Cannon Mk 38 Mod 2
I also read that article that Bill posted, and I do think that the US Coast Guard should have gone with a Combined diesel and gas (CODAG) that is being used on ships such as the South African Navy’s Valour class frigates, German navy’s Sachsen class frigate and the Royal Norwegian Navy’s Fridtjof Nansen class frigate.
Unfortunately, I understand, the NSC has no margins for additional weight, and may also be too weak to handle the recoil forces of a larger gun–part of the reason I am less than enthusiastic about the class. In peacetime, it looks like NSCs will serve the Coast Guard well, but I think all our ships should have military potential. In the case of the Offshore Patrol Cutters, I’m hoping for more weight moment reservation, even if it is in the form of being able to keep 500 migrants on a weather deck (which has been included in the specification).
Adding SeaRAM in place of Phalanx would be relatively easy. It is a direct replacement for Phalanx CIWS,
Navy cruisers and destroyers have 5″ guns, but they are also needed for ASW and AAW and they are unlikely to available for NGFS in a high intensity conflict when CG vessels might be diverted from peacetime to wartime role. Giving CG ships 5″ guns and an NGFS specialist role is a good fit that would fill a very real need without imposing much overhead requirement in terms of training and maintenance, while also improving their Homeland Security potential.
I’d like to bring back the ASW mission, but I don’t see that happening. Even so, the space and weight reservation should be there. That does not have to have much impact. For ASW, the key is a towed array and the ability to service, arm, and deploy the MH-60R. Don’t see much future in a hull mounted sonar. The short range ASW torpedoes are last ditch, urgent attack weapons, more for self defense, but they also don’t have much impact on the design, so why not. I also want the Mk32 torpedo tubes for another reason anyway: http://cgblog.org/2011/03/14/what-does-it-take-to-sink-a-ship/
(A towed array could be really useful for hunting down drug subs.)
The Mk-41 Vertical Launch System is the Swiss Army knife of missile launchers and would provide a great deal of flexibility with potential for systems that do anti-submarine, anti-air, and anti-surface, including harpoon, Evolved Sea Sparrow, and ASROC. It is just so alien to the way most Coasties and Homeland Security think, I don’t think it has a prayer. Still space and weight reservation would be nice.
Apparently none of these things were considered in the specifications for the NSC or the OPC.
The US Navy should have at least transferred all frigate operations, weapons and systems to the US coast Guard at the very least. At least with the US Coast Guard, we can use the Frigate for what it’s true intended purpose.
I also think that the person who designed the NSC should have thought about what if the NSC had to deploy with the US Navy overseas. They should have designed provisions for Frigate weapons and systems including ESSM, Sea RAM, MK32 torpedo tubes and Harpoons. I still think the The Mk-41 Vertical Launch System should have been included with the NSC and have the ESSM pack.
An update (vender news-release) on RAM here:
http://defense-update.com/20110915_rolling-airframe-missile-block-ii-to-begin-flight-testing.html
Every thing but the Harpoon’s. Their are plenty of Harpoon shooters out for now. ASW is the main area the Coast Guard should work on like before. Of course the Coast Guard would have to reopen the ST (Sonar Technician) rate. Also have officer qualified as real weapons officer. And hopefully not be punishes if a another person like Admiral Kime becomes commandant of the Coast Guard. Under his term as commandant it was not a good career move to be a qualified SWO (Surface Warfare Office) in the Coast Guard.
Not as many Harpoon shooters as you might think anymore. The Navy has begun to work on a new anti-ship missile.
The decrease in Harpoon shooters is partly changes in the fleet, but it is also that the Navy no longer has much confidence in it and sees subs and carrier aircraft as the proper way to go after surface warships. In exercises it seemed almost as likely they would miss their target and hit an innocent bystander merchantman.
All the FFGs lost the ability to shoot Harpoon when the Mk 13 missile launchers were removed.
Only the first 28 Arleigh Burkes (flights I and II) have the separate Harpoon launchers and trading standards or ESSM in the vertical launchers to get Harpoon doesn’t seem like a good idea. The 22 cruisers in service also have Harpoon, so perhaps 50 in the fleet.
And that one more reason not to add the Harpoon to the NSC. I am sorry some may former as well present Coast Guardsmen are so fixated on the 5″ Naval Guns. I don’t care if its a 5/38, or 5/54 or even a MK45 5/62. These system just have to short of range to do much good. And have too slow of a rate of fire to deal with modern air treats. As for sinking a ship, give me a break! If you really want to sink a ship, use a large torpedo like a MK 37 or better yet Mk 48. The only problem their is no surface ship set up to fire those weapons.
Concur that torpedoes are the best way to sink a ship:
http://cgblog.org/2011/03/14/what-does-it-take-to-sink-a-ship/
and I have also advocated for a return of the ASW mission:
http://cgblog.org/2011/01/31/bring-back-the-coast-guard-asw-mission/
http://cgblog.org/2011/02/06/shipbuilding-my-grand-plan-navy-and-cg-work-together/
http://cgblog.org/2011/03/26/towed-array-sonar-a-tool-for-drug-interdiction/
While I don’t think the 5″ is the weapon we need to stop a terrorist controlled ship, it has a better chance than a 57 or 76mm, and can be effective against moderate sized ships.
It is also the best NSFS (Naval Surface Fire Support) weapon in the inventory and with the exception of six advance gun systems on the DDG-1000 will remain so for the foreseeable future.
If you don’t think there is a shortfall in NSFS you haven’t been talking to Marines:
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/nsfs-shortfalls
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/overcome-events
As for the range, the Navy keeps trying to develop an extended range round and sooner or later they will succeed. Latest development with BAE talks about a 72 mile range. I haven’t been able to find any more recent information on this, but then there was no report of cancellation either: http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_1086215301.html
Adding this to CG ships would have relatively adverse effect on the ship, the training requirements, or the cost. It would not solve the NSFS shortfall, but it would be a step in the right direction. It might not be as good an AAW weapon, but guns, as Bill says are secondary for that purpose and if the CIWS is upgraded to include RAM (rolling airframe missile) the cutter will be protected as well (or better) than the 25,000 ton San Antonio Class LPDs.
Don’t think the US has had an occasion to launch an ASW weapon in anger since WWII and ships shooting at air targets is almost as rare, but NSFS has happened in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Brits did it in the 1982 Falklands War (where there was some ASW), 1983 the US in Lebanon, 1991 first Gulf War, 2003 the Second Gulf War (http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4605/topstories/story06.htm), and recently the Israelis have even used their 76mm and even 25mm for NSFS.
“These system just have to short of range to do much good. And have too slow of a rate of fire to deal with modern air treats.”
Perhaps a look a real situation would be better. If memory serves the only air to ship engagements in recent memory have been the Falklands War. The Brits had a devil of time with Argentinian aircraft that came in low and waited until practically on target to deliver the ordnance. The fast shooting Phalanx failed in its mission then and the other systems were found wanting as well. I understand that technology has advanced but AA gunfire, regardless of rate of fire, would be useful as a secondary just in case the plans do not work. We all know the first casualty of a conflict is the plan.
The reason the Coast Guard finally dumped its ASW mission was two fold. The first was it did not get enough practice; and second, the Navy really did not task the Coast Guard with an ASW mission or assist to greatly in supporting those practices.
Of course, the culture of the Coast Guard has a large part. The Coast Guard vacillates in mission priorities. I know it shows a list of things it has to do but the question is how well it does any of them. In 1928, then Commander Russell R. Waesche, in charge of Coast Guard HQ ordnance, wrote a report about the reluctance of the cutter captains to perform the required gunnery training. The cutter COs complained they did not have time and etc., and besides they considered themselves part of “humanitarian” service and did not want to do all that gunnery training. They did not consider it useful to their life saving roles.
As most know, a few years later Waesche was commandant and heads did roll ashore and more aggressive COs went to the cutters. The shift was, of course, for the upcoming war. Waesche was the best military preparedness commandant the Coast Guard has every had. He saw the mission was preparedness and set about changing the Coast Guard’s culture. The Great Depression did help because most wanted to keep their jobs.
The NSC, to me, is the last jerk in the long chain of ocean station, marine science and humanitarian mission concepts. The next large class of vessels will be different because the culture will take another shake. This has happened before and it will happen again.
Bill, I don’t think any of the British ships that were hit by Exocet, or aircraft bombs for that matter, were equipped with Phalanx or any other modern CIWS.
Agree, but the USS Stark was.