This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
The celebrated “slash”—that distinctive device that marks Coast Guard vessels as a breed apart— looks both attractive and appropriate on the hulls of these FFG-7s.
The Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7)-class frigates—sporting the distinctive U. S. Coast Guard “slash”—could become the “enforcers” of both the Coast Guard’s peacetime and wartime missions. Coast Guard FFG-7s would consistently be ready with fully manned, highly skilled crews for open-ocean escort duties with NATO forces, and also serve superbly our nation’s peacetime law enforcement needs.
The FFG-7s fit well in the Coast Guard’s existing force structure. Table 1 compares the operational characteristics of the Oliver Hazard Perry class, the Coast Guard’s Hamilton-class high- endurance cutters, and its new Sear-class medium-endurance cutters.
The fairly modem (1965-71) Hamilton-class high-endurance cutters currently serve as the Coast Guard’s primary combatants. While in many ways close to the FFG-7s, there are significant differences between the two classes, not the least of which are size and manning levels. The FFG-7’s propulsion system is also significantly different, and its integration into Coast Guard active service would require modifications to operational plans. The lack of a diesel propulsion system reduces the capability for staying power or the “cruising cutter” concept, though the use of the gas turbine propulsion units raises interesting possibilities.
Notwithstanding these differences, however, the ability t0 have modem, high-speed, “link”-capable law enforcement platforms would serve the United States well. When combined with existing high- and medium-endurance cutter classes, which have specific roles, the FFG-7 would add significant depth to our Peacetime law enforcement sea power. Planners might wish to consider reducing the visibility of the FFG-7’s missile capability for Coast Guard peacetime service, but retain the capability for 'Is fast integration with the Navy.
Captain Walter Thomas, U. S. Navy (Retired), in an article Published in Sea Power in September 1982, stated that
■ • . the FFG’s ‘forward projection’ capability demonstrates, as little else can, the sincere interest that the United States has for sharing its technology and training with other free world nations.” Having these vessels decked out in the Coast Guard’s colors would further exploit “forward projection,” since the Coast Guard has a strong peacetime reputation and one that is respected by most countries. A Coast Guard vessel’s visit is more widely accepted and often creates less antagonism than a Navy man-of-war’s.
The presence of U. S. Navy-designed ships in the Coast Guard should encourage increased use of Coast Guard vessels with Navy task groups or forces. Coast Guard FFG-7s and their crews rotating in and out of Navy deployed forces could serve a number °f important operational objectives. By having our Coast Guard vessels operationally linking with other naval surface ships and aircraft, we would be able to achieve many of our law enforcement goals. By having a modern Coast Guard, we would be better equipped to integrate the Coast Guard with the Navy in rime of war.
Assigned to the most significant ports of our nation, Coast Guard FFG-7s serving the peacetime functions of law enforcement and fisheries conservation would also serve the wartime need for dispersing forces. With a fleet of modem, high-speed vessels that were consistently interdicting the flow of drugs into this country, with each ship having and using the potential for “link” capability, the war on drug smugglers would take on new dimensions. The experiences gained through fully linked military coordination would serve as an ongoing readiness exercise. Though little need would be expressed for peacetime missile use, backfitting this capability would become important in a wartime role.
Each year, the Coast Guard FFG-7s should be fully integrated with either an operational exercise (particularly with NATO forces) or with a U. S. naval task force or group. This would still allow for 90% of a vessel’s time to be used for peacetime assignments. With sufficient vessels to accomplish required tasks, adequate coverage could be planned for those vessels that had been integrated.
A sufficient number of combat-ready Coast Guard ships, with crews familiar with the country’s many ports and the intricacies of their surrounding waters, would result in a highly advantageous position for coastal defense. Assigning Oliver Hazard Rerry-class frigates to the Coast Guard could produce such a well-equipped, operationally ready resource.
The Navy’s FFG-7 program is a good one. Built at a reasonable cost, the ship class has a great deal to offer naval strategic planners. Integrating the FFG-7s into active Coast Guard service would serve both the Navy and Coast Guard command structures by providing a single platform that could meet each other’s primary needs. A peacetime function using the Coast Guard’s roles would help to keep both the FFG-7s and the Coast Guard wartime ready.
Lieutenant Tinsman earned a B.A. in political science/intemational relations and a master’s degree in public administration from the University of Maine. Currently, he manages the planning department for E. C. Jordan Co., working in various areas of municipal and community planning. In the Coast Guard Reserve, he is the commanding officer of Reserve Unit “M” in the Reserve Northern Zone.
Table 1 Comparative Characteristics of Ship Classes Oliver Hazard Perry Hamilton
Displacement | 3,605 tons | 3,050 tons | 1,630 tons |
Length | 445 feet | 378 feet | 270 feet |
Beam | 45 feet | 42-3/4 feet | 38-1/3 feet |
Draft | 24-1/2 feet | 20 feet | 13 feet |
Propulsion | 2 gas turbines—1 shaft (controllable pitch prop.) 2-350 HP electric propulsion units | 2 gas turbines—2 diesels 2 shafts | 2 diesels—2 shafts |
Speed | 28+ knots (sustained) | 29 knots | 19.7 knots |
Range | 4,500 nm. @ 20 knots | 9,600 nm. @ 19 knots 2,300 nm. @ 29 knots | 9,900 nm. @ 12 knots |
Complement | 179 | 155 | 103 |
Helicopters | LAMPS I/III | HH-3F Pelican or HH-52A | LAMPS or HH-65A |
Missiles | 1 single Mk-13 Mod 4 launcher for standard MR SAM & Harpoon SSM (40) | Not equipped | Not equipped |
Guns | 1 76-mm. 62-cal. AA Mk-75 1 20-mm. Phalanx CIWS Mk-15 | 1 5-in. (127-mm.), 38-cal. 2 20-mm. machine guns 2 50-cal. machine guns | 1 76-mm. 62-cal. A A Mk-75 (wartime, 20-mm. Phalanx) |
ASW Weapons | 6 12.75-in. torpedo tubes Mk-32 and LAMPS | 6 12.75-in. torpedo tubes Mk-32 | LAMPS |
Radars | SPS-49 air search SPS-55 surface search | — | — |
Sonars | SQS-56 | SQS-38 | — |
Fire Control | Mk-92 Mod 2 Weapons FCS | — | Mk-92 |
Hulls | 50-51 planned | 12 in service | 13 planned |
Primary source: Norman Polmar, The Ships and Aircraft of the U. S. Fleet, Naval Institute Press, 1981.
Proceedings / April 1984
133