AirSea Battle

Posted on by
16

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments recently released its latest report: AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept, by Jan van Tol with Mark Gunzinger, Andrew Krepinevich and Jim Thomas.

It explores the possible progression of a major armed conflict between China and the US and its allies as a worst case scenario (short of nuclear weapons) of how to deal with the developing threat of Anti-Access and Area Denial weapons like conventionally armed Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) along with air and surface launched cruise missiles, mines, and submarines.

At almost 150 pages it is a bit of a slog, but interesting. It is a bit like WWII in the Pacific with modern weapons. The Chinese make a devastating surprise attack, then establishes a bastion in hopes of convincing the US and their allies that it is just too hard to reverse their aggression. The allies then have to begin disassembling and rolling back the bastion’s defences. This begins as each side makes a concerted attempt to blind the other’s intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems including space based systems.

The Coast Guard is not specifically mentioned, but if you look at the section on enforcing a distant blockade on China, page 76-78, it is a classic Maritime interdiction Operation (MIO) not unlike drug interdiction. They note, “However, many of the platforms most suited for this kind of operation, such as Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), patrol craft and small frigates, do not carry ordnance sufficiently heavy to stop larger ships determined not to halt and be boarded. Those Navy ships that do would be likely to have higher priority taskings, and thus would not generally be available to support MIO operations. However, Air Force bombers with their large payloads and long endurance could provide “on-call” maritime strike. These bombers could be assigned to support MIO operations and conduct strikes on PLA vessels or cargo ships as needed.”

This looks like make work for bombers that couldn’t survive China’s integrated air defense system to me. As we discussed in the post on the Korean sinking, There are cheaper and simpler ways of stopping recalcitrant merchant ships, but of course support of Maritime Patrol Aircraft for this type mission is almost always useful.

Sea Services Release Naval Operations Concept 2010–and the CG is a big part of it

Posted on by
9

The Naval Operations Concept 2010 has finally been released. This document is intended to implement the Maritime Strategy, 2007. After only a quick skim, it is apparent that the Coast Guard was well represented in writing the document. If anything the number of references to the Coast Guard are surprisingly high, considering the relative size of the service. The document calls out a number of requirements for Coast Guard forces, both currently filled and anticipated.

In view of the frequent question of whether the Coast Guard is a “Naval Service,” it was gratifying to see this straight forward statement on page 7, “The Naval Service is comprised of the active and reserve components and the civilian personnel of the United States Navy, the United States Marine Corps and the United States Coast Guard.”

The West Loch disaster

Posted on by
26

The US Naval Institute Blog has a story about a deadly accident that occurred at Pearl Harbor on this date in 1944 while the fleet was preparing for the invasion of Saipan. In one of the pictures you will see a 180-foot WLB helping to deal with the aftermath. There is more information about the disaster here.

Coast Guard-manned LST 69 was one of the six LST vessels sunk; CG-manned LST 205 was heavily damaged and missed the invasion.

This and the Port Chicago disaster two months later led to stronger Coast Guard oversight of explosive loading.

Coast Guard Manned Frigates in WWII

Posted on by
27

Here is a little article (unfortunately this link is now broken) about an ordinary Coastie’s experience in WWII that, in addition to having a cute dog story, includes reference to a little remembered program that resulted in the Coast Guard manning 75 Tacoma Class Patrol frigates (PFs), beginning in October 1943. These ships were adaptations of the British “River” Class, a design similar in purpose to Destroyer Escorts, but built to merchant standards by the Maritime Commission.

The ships were 2238 tons full load, 304 feet in length, with a 36’6′ beam and 12’8″ draft. They were steam powered and used triple expansion reciprocating engines for 5,500 HP and a speed of 20 knots. They had a range of 9500 nmi at 12 knots. The ships were typically armed with three 3″/50s, two twin 40mms, nine 20mms, a “hedgehog” multiple ASW mortar, depth charges, and eight depth charge projectors (K-Guns).

Twenty-three of the class were converted to serve as weather ships with the aft 3″/50 replaced by a balloon shelter and the crew reduced from 190 to 176. They replaced Coast Guard manned merchant ships that had been providing the service previously.

The battle, with subsequent rescue, referred to in the article, was the Battle off Samar, an inspiring story, worth a look if you are not familiar with it.

More on the South Korean Sinking–It was a torpedo–What next?

Posted on by
19

A bit more information about the Korean sinking here.

The South Koreans are in a very awkward situation. It will be interesting (as in the old Chinese curse) to see how this plays out.

Another question is, what kind of craft was used to launch the torpedo? The North Koreans have a wide range of platforms, from early Cold War Era Russian conventional sub designs, to midgets, planning hull semi-submersibles, torpedo boats, and “human torpedoes.” The more unconventional of these craft may make it to Iran and possibly on to terrorist groups.

The “Coast Guard” in the Spanish American War

Posted on by
2

Recently ran across a site dedicated to the Spanish American War.

There was a section dedicated to the Revenue Cutter Service. I found the stories I had expected about the HUGH McCULLOCH and the HUDSON. Also found that Captain Satterlee, who commanded TAMPA when she was sunk during WWI had participated.

What surprised me was the level of participation by the light house service. Four tenders were involved in the blockade of Cuba and one of their officers did a little spying, “On 11 June, Lieutenant Victor Blue of SUWANNEE (formerly MAYFLOWER) went ashore to make a visual reconnaissance of Santiago Bay and the ships in it. Guided by a member of the Cuban insurgent forces, he passed through enemy lines and observed the Spanish squadron on 12 June. His report confirmed that all of Admiral Cervera’s squadron had in fact entered the bay, thus enabling the blockade by heavy ships of the Navy to be concentrated at that point, without having to worry about threats to the troop convoys preparing to depart from Tampa. SUWANNEE’s night station among the blockading forces was two miles from Morro Castle as part of a picket line to detect any sortie by (Spanish torpedo boat destroyers) FUROR and PLUTON for a torpedo attack. She missed the battle, however, being one of the ships detached to Guantanamo bay for coaling at the time.”

There is more information on the cutters of the era here.
The home page for the Spanish American War site also asks for help in preserving the Cruiser OLYMPIA. She is truly unique, and probably the most important historical ship in the US after the USS CONSTITUTION.
There are many eye witness accounts including some from the McCULLOCH’s prospective. This one is particularly lively. It seems to capture the enthusiasm of the age.

Susitna Ferry, Funded by Office of Naval Research, Sea Warfare & Weapons Dept., Tranformer, More Than Meets the Eye

Posted on by
7

Ice breaking, Catamaran, SWATH, variable draft. At the very minimum this has to be a challenge to the Marine inspectors.

http://ww1.matsugov.us/ferry/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=2

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?177898-Successful-launch-of-Susitna-Ferry

Implications for the Arctic?

Israeli Navy Developments, with possible CG connections

Posted on by
5

Thought some of you might find this article interesting.  It touches on a number of items that might be interesting.

The Typhoon gun mount, now being equipped with the Spike ER missile system, is the same mount planned for installation on the Fast Response Cutter under the US designation Mk 38 Mod 2. This mount has lots of interesting non-military potential as a search, survaillance, and navigation aid as well.  I would think we would want in on the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC).

It discusses how the Israelis are dealing with the threat of booby trapped fishing vessels that have been used in three attacks on boarding vessels.

It talks about development of a persistent, radar equipped maritime version of their Heron high altitude UAV. This might be an alternative for the CG.

It reports how the Israelis are using kits to convert RHIBs to unmanned armed surveillance craft.

It also notes that the Israelis are in the market for a ship about the same size as the Offshore Patrol Cutter, and because the money will likely be provided by the US, there is a good chance it will have to be built in the US.  There might be an opportunity for cooperation here.