I wonder the reasoning why the USCG chose to delete the forward crane on their MPI version. Nevertheless the MPI is a very aesthetically pleasing design. Can’t wait to see how it performs in the future.
MPI is replacing multiple classes of light icebreakers/buoy tenders, so it needs the crane and deck space. USCG ASCs don’t have that mission, so no real need.
They may not have a direct mission need but omitting any standalone craning capability feels shortsighted. Without it the large working deck will be far less useful.
As for the 25mm, a centreline crane would not have greatly reduced the gun’s arcs if the weapon had also been mounted on the centreline, as in the latest arrangement. For routine constabulary duties that configuration would likely have been perfectly acceptable.
I wonder, though. The crane requires significant deck strength/support and a hydraulic system underneath. It might be challenging to keep the crane there and place a gun centerline without significantly changing the design.
The gun requires additional deck strengthening and an ammunition run below it. I don't know the design at all, but it might be challenging to do that, especially if safety specifications require the ammo handling/storage facility to be separated from the hydraulic systems. Moving the gun forward moves more weight and ammo forward, affecting trim.
And I will argue that all USCG ships will be called upon to defend themselves and even conduct/support air defense and strikes (with missiles) should a war kick off in the Pacific. In my opinion, everything the USN/USCG builds from here on out needs self defense weapons systems and at a minimum the ability launch missiles from its own VLS or an installed Mk70.
The MK38 is a surface mount that needs no through deck penetration and only minimal reinforcement. Its linked ammunition is carried in a co-located magazine, so fitting it forward of the crane would be a non issue given the heavy reinforcement already incorporated for it.
And given the ship is intended for arctic utility and constabulary work, a 25 millimetre is entirely appropriate. It does not need VLS or MK 70 capability for that mission set, especially with its current sensors and combat management.
Thanks for the note on the Mk 38. I think I had the Mk 110 57mm in mind, which the Davie ASC can handle. I was discussing that earlier in the week, so my brain probably fused the two.
The MPI might be intended for solely those mission sets (arctic utility and constabulary work), but I don't see the U.S. Coast Guard ASC in the same manner. This is one of the reasons I do not think the MPI is the best design for the USCG. I've written about that at length elsewhere.
In short:
In wartime, the ASC squadron, likely based out of Nome, will find itself with responsibility for operating year-round in defense/support/closing of the Bering Strait to adversary traffic. They may very easily find themselves integrated with the U.S. Navy. I know that the U.S. Coast Guard will want its own sensors/comms/keymat/secure facilities on the MPI (just like on other cutters).
The USCG and CCG are not the same, they do not have the same mission set.
This is a very good thing. Continental Commonality, to an extent, helps support Canada’s shipbuilders with their first decent export orders (even if built abroad), helps strengthen the Icebreaker knowledge base and supply chain, also helps support Davies new yard in Galveston.
Lies.. you were singing demon slayer theme songs... why did you happen to mention the existence of this series. I dont even like that stuff..... but great news for all of the canadian contributions to this welcome bump on to the order books... hard work.. you gotta work work....as Brittany says...
I wonder the reasoning why the USCG chose to delete the forward crane on their MPI version. Nevertheless the MPI is a very aesthetically pleasing design. Can’t wait to see how it performs in the future.
MPI is replacing multiple classes of light icebreakers/buoy tenders, so it needs the crane and deck space. USCG ASCs don’t have that mission, so no real need.
Also, the crane would really limit the field of fire of that forward 25mm gun that seems to have appeared... At least in this picture
https://images.marinetechnologynews.com/images/maritime/w800h500/image-courtesy-162395.jpg
They may not have a direct mission need but omitting any standalone craning capability feels shortsighted. Without it the large working deck will be far less useful.
As for the 25mm, a centreline crane would not have greatly reduced the gun’s arcs if the weapon had also been mounted on the centreline, as in the latest arrangement. For routine constabulary duties that configuration would likely have been perfectly acceptable.
I wonder, though. The crane requires significant deck strength/support and a hydraulic system underneath. It might be challenging to keep the crane there and place a gun centerline without significantly changing the design.
The gun requires additional deck strengthening and an ammunition run below it. I don't know the design at all, but it might be challenging to do that, especially if safety specifications require the ammo handling/storage facility to be separated from the hydraulic systems. Moving the gun forward moves more weight and ammo forward, affecting trim.
And I will argue that all USCG ships will be called upon to defend themselves and even conduct/support air defense and strikes (with missiles) should a war kick off in the Pacific. In my opinion, everything the USN/USCG builds from here on out needs self defense weapons systems and at a minimum the ability launch missiles from its own VLS or an installed Mk70.
The MK38 is a surface mount that needs no through deck penetration and only minimal reinforcement. Its linked ammunition is carried in a co-located magazine, so fitting it forward of the crane would be a non issue given the heavy reinforcement already incorporated for it.
And given the ship is intended for arctic utility and constabulary work, a 25 millimetre is entirely appropriate. It does not need VLS or MK 70 capability for that mission set, especially with its current sensors and combat management.
Thanks for the note on the Mk 38. I think I had the Mk 110 57mm in mind, which the Davie ASC can handle. I was discussing that earlier in the week, so my brain probably fused the two.
The MPI might be intended for solely those mission sets (arctic utility and constabulary work), but I don't see the U.S. Coast Guard ASC in the same manner. This is one of the reasons I do not think the MPI is the best design for the USCG. I've written about that at length elsewhere.
In short:
In wartime, the ASC squadron, likely based out of Nome, will find itself with responsibility for operating year-round in defense/support/closing of the Bering Strait to adversary traffic. They may very easily find themselves integrated with the U.S. Navy. I know that the U.S. Coast Guard will want its own sensors/comms/keymat/secure facilities on the MPI (just like on other cutters).
The USCG and CCG are not the same, they do not have the same mission set.
I think this is a good thing. it will de-risk out builds when we are done our two polars
This is a very good thing. Continental Commonality, to an extent, helps support Canada’s shipbuilders with their first decent export orders (even if built abroad), helps strengthen the Icebreaker knowledge base and supply chain, also helps support Davies new yard in Galveston.
Most news articles I have read either miss or ignore the Canadian connection. Too bad because Canada could use some good press in the US right now.
I had to double think...where's the Gulf of America?
Surprise! Excellent development for the Canadian and allied yards of the marine industry. ICEPACT tips it's hat and exits the chat....
They can't be dropping this news on me this late at night. Woken up to Icebreakers in my face like a flashbang😭
Lies.. you were singing demon slayer theme songs... why did you happen to mention the existence of this series. I dont even like that stuff..... but great news for all of the canadian contributions to this welcome bump on to the order books... hard work.. you gotta work work....as Brittany says...