quote:

Just note the comparisons to the 327'HEC or the 180' WLB or even a butt ugly 255' HEC.

Yeah, the 255 was certainly not a beauty. Kinda reminded me of the short stocky kid that would play center on the high school football team.

They were tough though!

quote:

Originally posted by Ex_CG_GM:
Ooooh, LOOK...a picture of a 378 with a REAL GUN on the bow! Cool!!!

Guess what idiot they got to put on the gloves and catch the hot powder casings flying out the back??? Yep...yours truly. I had that GQ billot through Gitmo REFTRA in '83.... six fun weeks of fun in the sun!

About a year later, someone got the idea to have this here punky E-3 up in the front seat of the mount director. I loved it but never understood why they asked me to do it instead of a GM or at least a Petty Officer. It was the best view on the entire cutter. I had a CWO in the back seat.

I don't remember ever getting to fire from the director. I figure I was pretty much put there to spot danger issues with my hawk eyes during target shooting.

Don

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 21yrsUSCGUSCS,

NAVY ships are not made to operate where we operate, when was the last time you saw a Navy ship in the North Atlanitic in Feb?

Getting worn out Navy junk is not the solution, getting ripped off by contractors is not either. What happened in Deep _ _ _ _ was that we used contractors to watch contractors and they both screwed us.

We need a ship designed from the Keel up to do what we want it to do, not a what is it a Type 46 British Air Defense Friget minus the Air Defense. When I have Admirles telling me there are spaces on this ship we have not yet figure out a use for I know it's time to retire.

Sorry My letter is going in very soon.

Interesting. The NSC does bear some exterior resemblance to the Dutch De Zeven Provincien Class (LCF) frigate, minus most of the weaponry.





KC

quote:

not a what is it a Type 46 British Air Defense Friget minus the Air Defense

Type 45 Destroyer?
http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/592/Dauntless_launch.jpg

As noted elswhere on the web, naval engineering is a small field...designs tend to become similar.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/type45.htm

Here is what we are getting without missiles and associated systems and with modifications

So if we are getting an off the shelf design why is it so difficult to build? and why does it cost so much?

Uh... a-hem... <shuffle papers>... is it hot in here? can we get some air? thanks... sorry, so yes... those are great questions, and I'm sure you will be successful in getting exhaustively comprehensive, well articulated, and perfectly reasoned answers which completely satisfy your passing interest, thus allaying any lingering concerns over the process- ooh! I'm late for another hearing... good day, Senator.

Might have found some older plans laying around and updated them ? Could it have saved a few $$$

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mastersmate,

Master Mate,
that is a great design for a Coast Guard Cutter note the high bow, she is made for rough seas I also like the north sea stacks.

She was a proposed design from about 1965 and was projected to be in service about 1972.
The link has some interesting facts about the ship, and the link that is in the article has a very interesting memo from the engineers about this particular ship.

http://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/neverbuilt701.html

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mastersmate,

quote:

Originally posted by DCCSUSCG:
NAVY ships are not made to operate where we operate, when was the last time you saw a Navy ship in the North Atlanitic in Feb?

Getting worn out Navy junk is not the solution, getting ripped off by contractors is not either. What happened in Deep _ _ _ _ was that we used contractors to watch contractors and they both screwed us.

We need a ship designed from the Keel up to do what we want it to do, not a what is it a Type 46 British Air Defense Friget minus the Air Defense. When I have Admirles telling me there are spaces on this ship we have not yet figure out a use for I know it's time to retire.

Sorry My letter is going in very soon.

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

From all I have read online it appears that the
integrator who was to monitor the contractor was the same contractor. So you had the President of the integrator partnership really getting his paycheck and evaluation marks from Lockheed. So guess who he is loyal to more, the Coast Guard or Lockheed?

I wonder what will happen with the 123 foot patrol boat claim. A lot has been stated in the public about this project which may implicate the contractor. The biggest statement was from Bollinger's Mr Hamlin about the computers having problems with the structural design. Plus the fact that Northrop agreed to repair the boats for free means an act of admission as well. The fact they agreed to repair them means they were going to commit money/resources to fix the problem for free. Hence, why would it be reasonable to get this money/resource from Northrop as compensation for the failure with the 123 foot patrol boat project?

Fix the 123, yeah right, how on earth can you fix that screw up. It was not a matter of workmanship it is a matter of consept flaw.

In hind site we should have just built new patrol craft, that is still the right answer not spending time screwing around with these boats.

Yeah fix it for free, until there is some change we want to the "fix" then they will start the cycle of billing once more.

Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.

As I understand it, the Cyclone boats on loan will be returned to the Navy in 2009. How much do these cost each? Could we buy our own mini fleet of these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_class_Patrol_ship

quote:

Originally posted by MastersMate:
Might have found some older plans laying around and updated them ? Could it have saved a few $$$

MM-- that top pic looks a lot like the 270, albeit stretched a bit...

The top looks like the disigners had sea keeping in mind something lacking on modern war ships. WarShips have no need for an air castle which comes in handy when rescueing poeple from the water, we had a heck of a time doing it on the 270, at least the top ship has a partial air castle.

The NSC will operate long after this war on terror or what ever they call it is over, we need a ship with the long range future in mind one that can wistand years of pounding in the North Atlantic and Berring Sea.

Not a fair weather Navy style ship.

Also we need fuctionality the ship has to be designed with the end use in mind. That is to SAVE LIVES and enforce laws. Not fight wars.

quote:

Not fight wars.

I wouldn't rule that out. It has happened a few times in the past.....

quote:

Also we need fuctionality the ship has to be designed with the end use in mind. That is to SAVE LIVES and enforce laws. Not fight wars.

If that were indeed the case, would there be any more need for the Coast Guard to be one of the five U.S. Armed Forces - that is, remain a military service?

quote:

Originally posted by cobra_brass:
As I understand it, the Cyclone boats on loan will be returned to the Navy in 2009. How much do these cost each? Could we buy our own mini fleet of these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_class_Patrol_ship

Isn't operating expense one of the issues with these boats? The Coast Guard can't count on Congress to properly fund expensive toys, albeit useful toys, for more than a couple of years at at time. They've got to have something that can sip fuel when no emergent need is present.

quote:

Originally posted by M_Wood51:

quote:

Also we need fuctionality the ship has to be designed with the end use in mind. That is to SAVE LIVES and enforce laws. Not fight wars.

If that were indeed the case, would there be any more need for the Coast Guard to be one of the five U.S. Armed Forces - that is, remain a military service?

Good point M Wood. It could be a law enforcement type service such like the Border Patrol. The only problem is none of the military members would desire that since it would change entire personnel system from officer ranks to retirement credits, etc. etc.

quote:

Good point M Wood. It could be a law enforcement type service such like the Border Patrol. The only problem is none of the military members would desire that since it would change entire personnel system from officer ranks to retirement credits, etc. etc.

I think you may be missing the fact that many join knowing it is a military service and are prepared to fulfill that role. In addition, ALL those in the Coast Guard are military members.

The CG's presence in the Persian Gulf is certainly more limited then in previous conflicts but there is no guarantee that future conflicts may, once again, put the CG in a position where the military role comes to the forefront.

Vietnam happened 20+ years after WWII. In between there were many that saw the CG's military role going away. Turns out they were wrong.


As for the Navy and their "fair weather" ships, you may not want to post that on the Navy forum.....

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ex_CG_GM,