PDA

View Full Version : Coast Guard adds big guns




Hamilton Reef
03-09-2006, 11:24 AM
Don't forget your life preservers! :yikes:

Coast Guard adds big guns
Firepower beefed up on Great Lakes

http://www.record-eagle.com/2006/mar/09coast.htm

March 9, 2006 By CRAIG McCOOL Record-Eagle staff writer

CHARLEVOIX - Training aboard the U.S. Coast Guard's Acacia recently included more than typical rescue and buoy-tending exercises.
Crew members last week also practiced firing the ship's new M240 mounted machine guns, weapons that can fire up to 600 rounds a minute.
The Charlevoix-based Acacia is one of about a dozen large Great Lakes ships that since 2004 were quietly armed with machine guns in the name of the war on terror.
All 11 Great Lakes cutters - the term for any craft larger than 65 feet - are now armed with heavy weaponry. Other than traditional small arms - rifles and handguns - it is the first time since World War II the Great Lakes have seen regular armed patrols.
After the Coast Guard was absorbed by the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, cutter missions expanded to include patrolling "for smugglers of migrants and drugs, or terrorists seeking to infiltrate the international border," said Petty Officer William Colclough with the U.S. Coast Guard's Cleveland office, the headquarters of Great Lakes operations.
The move represents a Coast Guard policy shift in a region where missions are generally of the search-and-rescue or buoy-tending variety, said Marquette Maritime Historian Frederick Stonehouse.
"Its' certainly significant because it's the first time the Coast Guard has had crew-served weapons ... meaning it takes more than one man to run it ... on the Great Lakes arguably since World War II," Stonehouse said.
Treaties between United States and England, and later with Canada, to limit arms on the Great Lakes date back almost 200 years, said Stonehouse, who's authored numerous maritime history books, made television appearances and acted as a consultant to both the U.S. and Canadian parks services.
"You can argue that they're putting a machine gun on a boat and who cares?" Stonehouse said. "Though I'm sure that, for diplomatic reasons, they had to soothe a few feathers."
Executive Lt. Cary Godwin of the Acacia said the ship was provided the weaponry in 2004, but crew members were not able to train with the guns on the water until last week.
"There were political hurdles that needed to be taken care of before we could mount the weapons and water train," Godwin said. "In the past, there's been issues because of the Canadian border and treaties."
There were also been environmental hurdles, Godwin said. The 7.62 mm guns, capable of firing up to 600 rounds a minute, have the potential to disperse a lot of lead over a large area.
"The political and environmental concerns have been outweighed (by security concerns) to make sure the cutters can respond if necessary," he said.
But Stonehouse said big new guns on the Great Lakes signal that the Coast Guard is driven "from the top down" with "a one-size-fits-all" mentality.
"Personally, I think it's ludicrous," he said. "Where's the threat? Who are they after with this thing, a recreational boater who doesn't have enough life jackets?"
The M240s will always be aboard all the cutter ships, including the new ice breaker Mackinaw, which has yet to receive the guns but is equipped with gun mounts, Colclough said. But the weapons will not be mounted unless circumstances require.
One such circumstance was security detail in the Detroit River last month during the Super Bowl, said Senior Chief Petty Officer Jeff Hall, also with the Coast Guard's Cleveland office.
"In normal, everyday operations they're not going to be in use," Hall said. "Our ships and boats all have to meet a certain standard of response. They have to have them on board. It's not so much overkill when you don't need them as preparedness for when you might."




ahasiec
03-09-2006, 11:28 AM
I guess we better stay out of there way out there, otherwise our rigs might be in pieces...

Robert W. McCoy Jr
03-09-2006, 11:33 AM
I'd have to look it up but I think the coax is closer to 1000 rounds per minute.

One heck of a good thing to have on your side.

perchguy
03-09-2006, 11:59 AM
My office looks over the river right next to Cobo Hall and aabout a week before the Super Bowl, there were at least 3 small vessels slowly patroling up and down the river and I don't think they were after walleyes. The guns were very visable and I would not care to mess around this these guys. They are packing some serious iron

lkmifisherman
03-09-2006, 12:34 PM
With all the nuclear reactors that border the Great Lakes I would think that the coasties would need more firepower than that...I think they need to go back and reserect the PT boats and even arm the rescue choppers with Mavericks and Tomahawks...or better yet station some Apaches in the area...If you think that sounds insane...look at who and what we are dealing with....How many people would be wiped out if they hit a reactor near Chicago? And there is 3 or 4 near the water with minimal security....They used planes ...whats to stop them from using a boat next?

lkmifisherman

enfield
03-09-2006, 06:39 PM
Big guns start at 5". :D

mallardtone-man
03-10-2006, 03:31 AM
Kinda cool, but I wonder how much money that ***** is costing taxpayers. Easily a few hundred thousand. I would put money on it that they will not fire those guns more than once every 10 years or so...

frenchriver1
03-10-2006, 07:10 AM
Provide one credible instance where such firepower would have been necessary to deter a terrorrist or other dastardly deed guy or group, and I will agree for the need. Otherwise is is just a testosterone rush for the officers and men... Bet they rust to unusablness before they are ever fired for a defined need... Extreme firepower on an icebreaker!!!!! Never knw when they might run into a terrorist walrus...

GottaHunt
03-10-2006, 07:12 AM
Kinda cool, but I wonder how much money that ***** is costing taxpayers. Easily a few hundred thousand. I would put money on it that they will not fire those guns more than once every 10 years or so...


Hopefully, it will only take ONCE.:yikes:

Jason Adam
03-10-2006, 09:42 AM
Provide one credible instance where such firepower would have been necessary to deter a terrorrist or other dastardly deed guy or group, and I will agree for the need. Otherwise is is just a testosterone rush for the officers and men... Bet they rust to unusablness before they are ever fired for a defined need... Extreme firepower on an icebreaker!!!!! Never knw when they might run into a terrorist walrus...

It's called a "visual deterant". I had the boys in Port austin do a voulentary inspection at the dock on my boat, at my request(would rather them get it out of the way at the dock, than pull me over trolling for a routine inspection). One guy stood on the dock with an 8 shot remington 870 12ga, another guy stood in the back corner of my boat facing the cabin door with an 8 shot 870 12ga, and both had side arms, as did the two guys inspecting(4 guys total). I have no problem with this, and had to explain it to several people with me that day.

Beyond the terrorist aspect of it, how about this. All of the ports on the great lakes are technicaly international ports(you could use any of them to bypass border crossing.) If a guy goes to Canada or whatever, and loads a fishing boat hull with 300 Kilos of blow, or 2000lbs of pot or whatever, and plans on having a guy with a truck and trailer waiting in Port Austin launch parking lot just like hes coming in from a day of fishing. Maybe he even stops and fishes for a few, just to make it look legit, etc.. but regardless, that guy gets boarded for a saftey inspection on the water 10 miles off the tip of the thumb. He's 10 miles out in the lake and there is a coastie patrol boat with 3 or 4 officers on it. What are his options? Option 1 is to let them find a million dollars in drugs and then he goes to jail and probably gets shot when he gets out by the guy that hired him to run the drugs. Option two is to take your chances and take on the only 3 or 4 guys that would ever know??? What should those officers be armed with at this point? Friggin pepper spray??? That guy is gonna be a whole lot more reluctant to try something stupid with alot of hot lead aimed at him...

As far as what its costing the tax payers, I'm sure it is atleast a few hundred thousand. This is govermant money. Whats the Iraq tab at now? 300billion?? I believe this is doing 10X as much for "homeland security"...