willey@unsvax.nevada.edu (Adm. Pavel Chekov) (06/02/89)
From: willey@unsvax.nevada.edu (Adm. Pavel Chekov) I heard a report on the news a couple of days ago about the Coast Guard being armed with Harpoon missiles and Phalanx CIWS. I know that the war on drugs is important, but is this true? If so, what is the justification of arming Coast Guard Cutters with these weapons. It seems to me that these weapons amount to overkill, and the money would be better spent if more vessels were bought to cover more area. How many miles out from the shore does the U.S. claim as territorial waters? If it is the standard 12 miles, what use is the Harpoon in such a limited area?
doug@spdcc.com (Doug Mackensie) (06/03/89)
From: doug@spdcc.com (Doug Mackensie) It's a shame... many people do not know or don't realize that the Coast Guard has a very important military mission... In time of war, the CG becomes part of the Navy and is charged with, among other things, coastal defense, port security, convoy escort, etc. Currently, the Coast Guard is in charge of most of the joint Navy- CG Maritime Defense Zones. The CG constantly trains with the Navy to perfect its war skills. The ships that are being outfitted with the two weapons systems you mentioned are the high endurance class of cutters. These ships, similar to destroyer escorts, would serve as convoy escorts in time of war. Theres an old Coast Guard saying: The CG is the nucleus around which the Navy forms in time of war. -- Doug Mackensie doug@spdcc.COM System operator, Doug's Den BBS - (617) 245-1270 - 300/1200/2400 baud GayCom in New England "More fun per byte" [mod.note: A friend of mine tells a story of an acquaintance who joined the Coast Guard to avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam; he found himself on a PBR patrolling the Mekong... - Bill ]
budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) (06/03/89)
From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) Dear Adm Checkov, Your report is, more or less, correct. CIWS (aka Phalanx) and 4 canister-mounted Harpoon missiles are suppose to be installed on the 12 High Endurance Cutters (Hamilton Class, 278' LOA). The first two of these cutters have just emerged from a mid-life FRAM and are getting their sea legs back. In another year or so, they get a post-FRAM availability where the installations occur. The rest of the class follow as they complete their overhauls. As you noted, neither is terribly useful as law enforcement weapons. But adequate gunnery firepower remains: the 5" 38 cal gun forward is being replaced by a 76mm Oto Melara in FRAM and the fire control system is being upgraded from Mk 85 (??) to Mk 92 which is fairly standard on small Navy combatants and also is installed on the WMEC-270 class. The Coast Guard has wartime defense missions as well as the law enforcement and search & rescue ones. While I think the surface and anti-air missions are being too over-emphasized at the expense of ASW, the presence of military weapons for military missions has never been an issue. The military mission in the Coast Guard dates back to the Seminole War (~1803) where the formation of the Revenue Cutter Service dates from 1790 -- the origin of the law enforcement mission. The naval engineering problem of trading things off and reaching a satisfactory compromise -- a discussion here recently -- is more the issue than the weapons themselves. The WHECs at 378' are smaller than the smallest current Navy combatants (all FFs and FFGs are over 400'). Given the limited real estate and ability to accomodate topside weight, is it properly allocated to CIWS and Harpoon or is an enhanced ASW C3I or aircraft carrying capability more important? My own opinions happen to differ from those who made this decision, but it's easier to criticize than act, so caveat emptor. Rex Buddenberg [disclaimer: active duty CG]
budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) (06/03/89)
From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) Admiral Chekov's second question, about territorial sea, and by implication USCG jurisdiction, is fundamentally different from the weaponry, so two submissions. The United States claims a 3 nautical mile territorial sea, a 12 nautical mile contiguous zone, a 200 nautical mile fisheries conservation zone, a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone and title to benthic resources 'to the edge of the continental shelf'. Additionally, the United States claims jurisdiction over US citizens everywhere. We are inhibited from exerciseing that jurisdiction within the territory (including territorial seas) of other nations (with a few exceptions, mostly bilateral agreements with Canada). Adequately confusing? Moral: don't get into a search law, 4th Amendment, or jurisdictional argument with a Coast Guardsman. We play with this stuff every day. The 3 mile territorial sea dates from Revolutionary War days when that was the generally accepted maximum range of warship guns. Most countries have accepted a 12 mile TW in accordance with the Law of the Sea convention (UNCLOS). The 12 mile contiguous zone dates from rum war days where Congress enacted enabling legislation to allow application of US law to vessels on rum row (NJ coast mostly) and back these guys out 9 more miles. While the Volstead Act itself was repealed, the customs legislation was not and we've used it ever since in fisheries law enforcement. Fisheries Conservation & Management Act muddied the waters somewhat. This established a 200 mile fisheries conservation zone where the United States claims a stewardship role for certain species of fish. Tuna, because they are highly migratory, were excepted (although generally not by other countries adopting similar legislation -- we've had tuna wars with Canada in particular over this issue). Note that FCMA did NOT say the fish were ours; it said we claim management jurisdiction over the fish and US fishermen get first crack at the available quotas -- excess is then allocated to foreign customers. The Presidential proclamation of a 200 mile EEZ changed this a bit -- we now say the fish are ours, as are other economic resources in the water column. The continental shelf resources legislation mostly dates from the Truman administration where offshore oil drilling started in earnest. The edge of the continental shelf has always been a fishy (sorry) definition -- somewhere to seaward of the deepest drill rig. This has often led to interesting fisheries law enforcement cases -- prior to FCMA, it was illegal for a Japanese longliner to keep benthic catch -- crab -- caught on the US continental shelf... such as Gulf of Alaska. On the other hand, we couldn't go aboard and check unless we already had pretty damn convincing evidence anyway. Unless an injured crewman forces him into Sitka. (There's only one moorage in Sitka suitable for a vessel of this size -- the USCGC Clover pier. When you moor outboard of Clover, you can expect a boarding party! 3 crab in the galley == $150K.) There, of course, is more, such as stateless vessels, flag state delegation of jurisdiction, etc etc, but I'll call a halt here. Rex Buddenberg
bill@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (William S. Smith) (06/05/89)
From: bill@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (William S. Smith) In article <7094@cbnews.ATT.COM> budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) writes: >The 3 mile territorial sea dates from Revolutionary War days when >that was the generally accepted maximum range of warship guns. >Most countries have accepted a 12 mile TW in accordance with the >Law of the Sea convention (UNCLOS). The 12 mile contiguous >zone dates from rum war days where Congress enacted enabling I believe that in December 1988 as one of his last acts Ronald Regan extended the Territorial seas of the USA to 12 miles.
major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) (06/07/89)
From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) In article <7092@cbnews.ATT.COM>, doug@spdcc.com (Doug Mackensie) writes: > It's a shame... many people do not know or don't realize that the > Coast Guard has a very important military mission... In time of > war, the CG becomes part of the Navy and is charged with, among > other things, coastal defense, port security, convoy escort, etc. > Currently, the Coast Guard is in charge of most of the joint Navy- > CG Maritime Defense Zones. The CG constantly trains with the Navy > to perfect its war skills. Just a tidbit here about the Coast Guard during WWII (important military missions). I believe that most (if not all) of the landing crafts used during all the Pacific islands assault landings - were piloted by Coast Guardsmen. (anybody have any documented sources/facts?) Perhaps this was due to their 'more expertise' at small boat handeling. And don't forget, along with their wartime mission of coastal maritime defense, peacetime mission of 'coastal law enforcement', the CG is responsible for miles and miles of Inland Waterways. major mike (who almost joined the Coast Guard in 1961)
dirtybob@blake.acs.washington.edu (Wendell Joost) (06/08/89)
From: dirtybob@blake.acs.washington.edu (Wendell Joost) I spoke briefly with a Coast Guard veteran, retired Officer type, who had joined the CG in 1942 to avoid going to Europe with the Army. He recounted an amusing tale of being attached to the Navy and sent to be in charge of landing craft at such garden spots as Saipan, Tinian, Tarawa and Okinawa.
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (06/09/89)
From: sun!sunburn.West.Sun.COM!mcdphx!anasaz!john >From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) In article <7092@cbnews.ATT.COM>, doug@spdcc.com (Doug Mackensie) writes: Just a tidbit here about the Coast Guard during WWII (important military missions). I believe that most (if not all) of the landing crafts used during all the Pacific islands assault landings - were piloted by Coast Guardsmen. (anybody have any documented sources/facts?) I don't know about landing craft, but a good friend of mine did survive the Guadalcanal battles on board a Coast Guard troop carrier (in this case a converted passenger liner) - the USS Hunter Liggett. The 32 landing barges they carried were piloted by Coast Guard. The Navy also had troop carriers with their boats piloted by Navy personnel.