A Coast Guard Helicopter Carrier

How about a USCG Version of HMS Ocean (A modern one of course not he early 1990's design and Technology) multi roll, capable of disaster relief and other non military roles. Large medical facility, capable of carrying a lot of kit and large flight deck. Also quite a small crew depending upon deployed role.
 
I can't think what it would be, but were the CG to be tasked with a extended multi year mission out of reach of available US bases, maybe blue water? Something for which it is legally awkward for the USN to do? Fastest way to do this is second a appropriate USN ship to the CG, maybe from the Gator navy.

If it's legally awkward for the Navy, it's going to be MORE awkward for the Coasties.
This got me thinking!

The best way is a Antarctic support ship, say the USN cant go to Antarctica legally due to how the treaty is interpreted by US? What if the United States Antarctic Program mission had been given to the CG in 59?

Then a large polar icebreaker/resupply ship with a large flight deck and hangar could be realistic to service the stations?
 
I'll be sure to keep this in mind! I remember my dad getting annoyed at the Navy's insistence at installing a pair of 25mm Bushmasters onto the new Polar icebreaker.

Two Mk 38's? That's it? They are thinking way, way to little. If they are heading to the Arctic, then the ship is operating within spitting distance of militarily competent foreign power with which we have had very bad relations in the past. Were it me, I'd mount a Mk 75, the two Mk38's, SRBOC, both .50 and lighter mgs, and possibly sonar. While your not going to be chasing subs, you may well get in a situation where you need to know about them. You'll need adequate magazine space for all these, and an HP air system. Same outfitting for the Antarctic. While that continent is peaceful, we may not always be welcome while transiting past various South American nations. The problem with inadequately armed ships is that they are vulnerable to being harassed and or captured. I worry less about the Russians doing this (if they want to sink a cutter or capture it, your toast, but that isn't normally how they operate any way) but smaller nations who want leverage against the US, like the Pueblo. Unarmed cutters are simply a liability.

Flying boats have a very nice cool factor. Not sure of their utility though. Longer ranged than helo's, but landing them in rough water, or taking off in rough water?
 
Flying boats have a very nice cool factor. Not sure of their utility though. Longer ranged than helo's, but landing them in rough water, or taking off in rough water?
Thing is, flying boats were a solution to the problem of "we don't have any long, smooth runways in this obscure colonial outpost" not "we need to land in the middle of the ocean". That particular problem went away in the 1940s, except in some very remote areas like Siberia.
 
Flying boats have a very nice cool factor. Not sure of their utility though. Longer ranged than helo's, but landing them in rough water, or taking off in rough water?

There's the ShinMaywa US-2 that the Japanese Navy uses for maritime SAR, but the HC-130/helicopter team works well enough for the USCG.
 
Two Mk 38's? That's it? They are thinking way, way to little. If they are heading to the Arctic, then the ship is operating within spitting distance of militarily competent foreign power with which we have had very bad relations in the past. Were it me, I'd mount a Mk 75, the two Mk38's, SRBOC, both .50 and lighter mgs, and possibly sonar. While your not going to be chasing subs, you may well get in a situation where you need to know about them. You'll need adequate magazine space for all these, and an HP air system. Same outfitting for the Antarctic. While that continent is peaceful, we may not always be welcome while transiting past various South American nations. The problem with inadequately armed ships is that they are vulnerable to being harassed and or captured. I worry less about the Russians doing this (if they want to sink a cutter or capture it, your toast, but that isn't normally how they operate any way) but smaller nations who want leverage against the US, like the Pueblo. Unarmed cutters are simply a liability.

Flying boats have a very nice cool factor. Not sure of their utility though. Longer ranged than helo's, but landing them in rough water, or taking off in rough water?

Yes but the problem is, large-caliber weapons aren't allowed on ships heading to Antarctica, which this ship will regularly do, so the Mk 38s will have to be removed before each voyage there. My dad suggested GAU-19's instead. :closedeyesmile:
 
It would be interesting to see seaplane on deadliest catch. One question I have is last season they said one boat was beyond chopper range. Does the Coast Guard C130 and choppers have aerial refueling?
 
Yes but the problem is, large-caliber weapons aren't allowed on ships heading to Antarctica, which this ship will regularly do, so the Mk 38s will have to be removed before each voyage there. My dad suggested GAU-19's instead. :closedeyesmile:


Perhaps I have read the treaties wrongly, or misinterpreted them incorrectly (quite possibly) AIUI, armed vessels can go there IF it is in support of scientific research, or research facilities, and cannot be based out of there. I have seen photos from the 60's of our breakers sporting single or twin 5"38's and smaller caliber guns. Not saying your wrong, just saying I may be behind the times. :)
 
Perhaps I have read the treaties wrongly, or misinterpreted them incorrectly (quite possibly) AIUI, armed vessels can go there IF it is in support of scientific research, or research facilities, and cannot be based out of there. I have seen photos from the 60's of our breakers sporting single or twin 5"38's and smaller caliber guns. Not saying your wrong, just saying I may be behind the times. :)
First, I'm pretty sure technically the ban on military activity applies to land and ice, not water. I may be wrong on this part.

Second, I'm definitely sure that military activities are banned, not military equipment. Military personnel on military vessels can go to Antarctica, but only to support legitimate scientific research, not to conduct military operations. Operations includes maneuvers, not just combat.

Now the U.S. Navy or other navies may well remove some weapons from ships going down there for scientific purposes as a show of good faith, I really would not know.
 
You guys are thinking too small.

POD the US Navy fobs off hospital ships to USCG. Lightly/zero armed USCG hospital ships are allowed to sail inside waters of hostile countries. USCG hospital ships help during numerous mass-casualty disasters. When they need serious airlift, USCG borrows CH-53 helicopter squadrons from USN and USMC. Anything smaller than CH-53 just clutters the flight deck.

POD North Korea - sort of - explodes a dirty nuclear bomb over Guam (or any of a thousand island nations) causing massive numbers of patients suffering from radiation sickness. USCG helicopter carriers/hospital ships rush to the rescue.

Alternately - to circumvent long- term financing problems - USCG requisitions a small container ship from the merchant marine. She loads a bunch of specialized containers for a one-month exercise. Specialized containers contain: X-Ray machines, surgical operating rooms, blood banks, pharmacies, jet fuel tanks, helicopter work-shops, close in weapons systems, depth charges, torpedoes, etc. The top layer of containers is reinforced to allow CH-53 helicopters to land.
Container load varies with the mission.
Arctic and Antarctic missions sail on ice-reinforced container ships. Early exercises only last a month or two, but USCG light carriers prove so popular that they soon sail 11 months out of the year.

As for anti-pirate duties off he coast of Somalia ....NATO, India, China, etc. have all sent frigates. Chasing pirates with frigates is like waaaaaaay overkill ...... like swatting mosquitos with a sledge-hammer! The job would be better done by slower ships carrying lots of helicopters. 20 cannon are enough to sink any Somali pirate vessel.
The days of commercial vessels hiring private military contractors as guards is so passé. Retired NATO special forces operators proved too expensive. Now the work goes to the lowest bidder who hires any Baluchis, etc. idling in Third World ports. When neighbouring nations feared heavily-armed PMCs staging coups, they shifted guards to Arsenal ships that stay in international waters.

In conclusion: The anti-piracy role is far better served by medium-sized helicopter carriers with at least a dozen birds on deck.

Retired Master Coporal Rob Warner, airframe technician who sailed aboard HMCS Iroquois and HMCS Athabaskan. I have hot-refuelled hundreds of Sea King helicopters at night, in heavy seas, etc.
 
Top