Containerized Weapon Systems for Unmanned Systems Might Work on Cutters

Posted on by

I have long felt like the emergence of unmanned surface vessels as warships might lead to weapons and sensors that would also fit nicely on Coast Guard cutters including containerized systems.

Looks like it may be happening.

7 thoughts on “Containerized Weapon Systems for Unmanned Systems Might Work on Cutters”

  1. The concept of weapons in a container are good for things like cargo ships, auxiliaries, T-ATS, or other ships that have lots of deck space, and power available.  This does not describe a frigate or any other small surface combatant.

    To continue the analysis . . . extra weight sitting above the waterline on a small surface combatant is never a good idea particularly if it might enjoy heavy weather.  The smaller the ship the more impactful any mass added above the waterline is. 

    If one has the options and the time weapons systems should be designed within the platform saving the precious extra weight of the container, and that weapon system mass be ‘programmed in’ as efficiently and effectively as possible. Containers on deck where deck space is not generous, excess power even less . . . is just asking for trouble when adding weight topside, and is never good for stability.  Anyone suggesting such an option either are not qualified, or have watched too many movies.       

    Reply ↓

    • In any case, cutters are a bit of a special case in that the Coast Guard does not want to man or maintain the systems in peace time, but it would be good if systems could be rapidly added to them for mobilization and manned and maintained by Navy Reservists.

      Specifically for the larger cutters if they could be augmented with an active/passive towed array, an MH-60R, and navy reserve personnel to man and maintain the systems.

      You would not even need to provide one system for each ship, just the ones that were available to do escorting.

      Reply ↓

      • I consider the container business for Small Surface Combatants a copout . . . lack of professionalism from those who just can/t pull it off unless it is ‘out of a box’. Huntgington Ingalls Shipbuilding needs to do the engineering and do it RIGHT. If fact they SHOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE IT. This has been coming . . . HOW LONG?

        Goodness . . . HII has some of the most advanced automated design and production tools in the industry . . . and they are NOT UP TO THE JOB? Shameful.

        These are the people who put USS Ticonderoga (CG-47) in the water floating out of a drydock for the first time . . . and saw their painted waterline 5′ underwater…. EXPERTS?

      • @TORCH, looking forward to seeing what happens with the FF(X) but it is going to be a long time before we start seeing large numbers of FF(X)s.

        Maybe will impact modifications for the National Security Cutters, but Bertholf is already almost 20 years old. Time to start planning its replacement.

      • The USCG cutters are already supposed to have a mobilization plan . . . that just needed a reason to drop the flag and arm them up. Evidently THAT may have been the plan, but never was the TRUTH. If HII really did have a mob-contingency then NOW IS THE TIME. These are our rapid destroyers/destroyer escorts. NOW is the time. I suspect that is why only two Flt I’s are scheduled then we leap into a full FFG. That is my hope.

  2. I don’t understand the view that containerized kit is a copout.

    There are upsides that shouldn’t be ignored.

    Technology changes. The winners will be those who best figure out how to take advantage of it.

    Reply ↓

Leave a comment