quote:

Originally posted by NYC_Coastie:
Aren't most modern warships now tin cans depending on defensive weapons?

Ed

Ed, I missed your earlier comment. While most modern warships (CG/DDG) are purely designed as an integrated force within a battlegroup construct, they are self-sufficient even if steaming independently. Let's assume a missle (Air Warfare/AW) attack for instance: the CVN (Carrier) provides air coverage to the entire battlegroup as a primary defensive measure (called the Fighter Engagement Zone/FEZ), the ships themselves provide the secondary layer (called the Missle Engagement Zone/MEZ). Assuming an attack gets through one of these two layers the ships also have both passive and attack mechanisms (Electronic Counter-Measures/Electronic Attack) to achieve what is called a "soft kill". If soft kill measures are not effective, the ship's have means to defend themselves through "hard kill" measures such as their own missles, guns and as a last line of defense CIWS.

While a USCG asset does not have the missle self-defense capability that a CG/DDG does, they would be covered (depending on there range from the nearest other missle capable ship).

I can't talk specifics about the AD capabilities of the radars, fire control systems and directors, but I served on a DDG and even if we had been tasked to perform a mission without FEZ coverage, I'd have felt very safe. As far as Suface Ship Survivability goes, based on the lessons learned from the HMS SHEFIELD and USS STARK, our tin can ship was specifically designed for not only survivability, but to continue the fight.

"This ship was built to fight, you'd better know how."
-ADM Arleigh Burke, USN (Ret.)

Ed, that is because the Battle of Midway changed the whole concept of Naval Warfare forever as warships engage without ever seeing each other.

The need to protect the hull from a broadside from an enemy BB or CG, just isn't there.

Now there ya go....scrape off a little rust, polish some brass and replace a few light bulbs. Then the USCG will add a whole new meaning to "High Endurance"!

Don

quote:

While a USCG asset does not have the missle self-defense capability that a CG/DDG does, they would be covered (depending on there range from the nearest other missle capable ship).

And since very few CG assets sail in company with the Navy, any CG ship coming under attack would be in deep guacamole.

quote:

Originally posted by Ex_CG_GM:

quote:

While a USCG asset does not have the missle self-defense capability that a CG/DDG does, they would be covered (depending on there range from the nearest other missle capable ship).

And since very few CG assets sail in company with the Navy, any CG ship coming under attack would be in deep guacamole.

Guns, I must have missed it at SWOSDOC where the instructors discussed the threats which could expose USCG ships to enemy aircraft or ASCMs while conducting USCG missions that would necessitate such an expense.

As far as I know, USCG ships have never had defensive purpose missile capability (such as the SM-2 for instance). Your Hamiliton Class ships had Harpoon ASMs installed in the late 1980s, but that is an offensive missile system designed to neutralize another ship, not something you can shoot down incoming ASCMs with.

An effective EW suite (with the capability to jam/attack), chaff, Main Gun Mount and CIWS seems enough to me. Obviously the Navy agrees since they are the ones who fund USCG Combat Systems.

But say for instance, if a "suprise" attack from an ASCM or aircraft were to hit a USCG ship with SM-2 capability, would this expensive and maintenance intensive option really even matter anyway if the ship was steaming independently and conducting fisheries or drug boardings? I'd be very suprised if USCG ships had a TAO watch in CIC outside of being with a USN battlegroup or conducting joint exercises with the Navy. Even the Navy does not have a TAO watch for Condition IV steaming.

Not all tugs/pushers are useful. I was on watch during Fleet Week 05 in NYC when right in front of me, two tugs were pushing a French Naval vessel in to moor between us and a Pakistan Naval ship, and the tugs push the French ship right over the Pakistans flight deck, causing a huge rip just aft of the bridge and destroying one of the life rafts, looked like a huge sardine can, couldn't believe my eyes.

My fathers a retired BOSN after 21 years and I learned a thing or two under his watchful eye, probably when I shouldn't have.

Of course after coming in myself, I was on a 175 with the Z-Drives and bow thruster, and full electronics package, which could drive itself to England if you wanted it too.

quote:

Guns, I must have missed it at SWOSDOC where the instructors discussed the threats which could expose USCG ships to enemy aircraft or ASCMs while conducting USCG missions that would necessitate such an expense.

I was merely pointing out the flaw in this statement:

"While a USCG asset does not have the missle self-defense capability that a CG/DDG does, they would be covered (depending on there range from the nearest other missle capable ship). "

quote:

Originally posted by Ex_CG_GM:

quote:

Guns, I must have missed it at SWOSDOC where the instructors discussed the threats which could expose USCG ships to enemy aircraft or ASCMs while conducting USCG missions that would necessitate such an expense.

I was merely pointing out the flaw in this statement:

"While a USCG asset does not have the missle self-defense capability that a CG/DDG does, they would be covered (depending on there range from the nearest other missle capable ship). "

No flaw. AB (the BWC) has no desire whatsoever to risk putting one of his assets in deep guacamole if the potential threat is there. Much like ships with limited ASW capability are protected by the screen, fleet doctrine calls for the same for ships w/ less AW/SUW capability to be covered by another unit's MEZ.

Current mod to FFG-7 class ships no longer has missiles installed for defensive capability either. Why? For the same reason USCG ships aren't funded for missiles, the threat no longer exists for it's mission and they are already covered by a more capable asset (how much depending on the range from the nearest missile capable ship). I can't discuss ranges, but no ship is Lone Rangering it out there in a AW environment.

The only point I was making is that layered defense works fine when sailing as part of a group, however most CG vessels operate independently, therefore the additional protection is not there.

That is the flaw I was pointing out.

quote:

Originally posted by Ex_CG_GM:
The only point I was making is that layered defense works fine when sailing as part of a group, however most CG vessels operate independently, therefore the additional protection is not there.

That is the flaw I was pointing out.

***********************

Layered protection could apply to one cutter... perhaps the first layer is the anti-aircraft missile system that has a designated range of 10 to 200 miles from the cutter or navy ship.... then you have a gun system that is designated for 5 to 10 miles.... then you have a close in weapon system for 3 to 5 miles.... then you have a chaf system for up to 1/2 mile, etc.

the ranges of each system could over-lap each other so that a layered approach could be employed.

Signed, Thads Boy (thadsboy@yahoo.com)

quote:

Originally posted by Ex_CG_GM:
The only point I was making is that layered defense works fine when sailing as part of a group, however most CG vessels operate independently, therefore the additional protection is not there.

That is the flaw I was pointing out.

And as I addressed above, it is not there because the threat isn't there.

Like my question asked too. Even if the Navy was to go to the expense of installing missile systems on USCG ships, would it matter? Which USCG ships do you know of that stand a fully manned watch in CIC to include a TAO, SUWC and AWC while steaming independently conducting USCG missions?

I have never seen USCG crews attending Combat System team trainers at these types of schoolhouses: www.ttgp.navy.mil unless deploying with Navy battlegroups.

quote:

Originally posted by ThadsBoy:

quote:

Originally posted by Ex_CG_GM:
The only point I was making is that layered defense works fine when sailing as part of a group, however most CG vessels operate independently, therefore the additional protection is not there.

That is the flaw I was pointing out.

***********************

Layered protection could apply to one cutter... perhaps the first layer is the anti-aircraft missile system that has a designated range of 10 to 200 miles from the cutter or navy ship.... then you have a gun system that is designated for 5 to 10 miles.... then you have a close in weapon system for 3 to 5 miles.... then you have a chaf system for up to 1/2 mile, etc.

the ranges of each system could over-lap each other so that a layered approach could be employed.

Signed, Thads Boy (thadsboy@yahoo.com)

ThadsBoy, the key phrase is "Defense in Depth".

quote:

And as I addressed above, it is not there because the threat isn't there.

Threats have a bad habit of popping up unexpectedly. The USS Pueblo is one such incident, the Cole another, the U.S. intelligence gathering ship that was attacked by the Israelis a third.

I have been out of the service way too long to have the answers, but do believe that the new CG vessels are poorly equipped to handle much of any threat.

Earlier you mentioned the 378's. Although they didn't have much in the way of defense against missiles they at least had ASW and surface combat capabilities. 40 years ago surface to surface missile threats were much less common then they are today.

The new vessels do not.

okay, as far as "defense in depth", it could deploy unmanned surface and aerial vehicles that provide the layered protection. the aerial vehicles could be linked to autonomous and self-propelled sonar buoys and could launch an attach against submarines, etc.

ThadsBoy had the concept right on his previous post, although his ranges are off. Not that we should be discussing specifics like that here anyway.

quote:

okay, as far as "defense in depth", it could deploy unmanned surface and aerial vehicles that provide the layered protection. the aerial vehicles could be linked to autonomous and self-propelled sonar buoys and could launch an attach against submarines, etc.

I agree there are many options that "could" be explored or utilized, but they aren't part of the package being built, are they?

quote:

Originally posted by Ex_CG_GM:

quote:

okay, as far as "defense in depth", it could deploy unmanned surface and aerial vehicles that provide the layered protection. the aerial vehicles could be linked to autonomous and self-propelled sonar buoys and could launch an attach against submarines, etc.

I agree there are many options that "could" be explored or utilized, but they aren't part of the package being built, are they?

Stan, I would admit they probably are not part of the original Deepwater package, though one would think it would given the price tag of $500 to $750 million per National Security Cutter! That sure could lead to a lot of bonus money for Lockheed and Northrop Deepwater Executives like Leo MacKay and Jamie Anton <i.e., there names were listed in the congressional hearings>.

Now, given all the C4ISR/computing power of the NSC, one could fathom that such unmanned vehicles could be deployed by the NSC.

And since we have mentioned the different threats, should we re-exammine the threat of asymmectric warfare? It seems more likely than a missle attack. Could any cutter fend off an attack from a small boat(or several) with an RPG?

How does the composite material of the NSC hold up against a hit like that as opposed to a 270' getting hit?

It does appear that Hugo Chávez is less than pleased with us:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070625/2/13tpm.html

quote:

How does the composite material of the NSC hold up against a hit like that as opposed to a 270' getting hit?

The NSC is not made up of composte material. I believe it is a steel hull and aluminum superstructure.