OPC Design Passes ICDR

OPC Characteristics:
 •Length:  360 feet, Beam:  54 feet, Draft: 17 feet
•Sustained Speed:  22+ knots
•Range:  8500+ nautical miles, Endurance: 60 Days

The Maritime Executive reports that Eastern has passed the Initial Critical Design Review milestone, a necessary step before long lead-time material could be ordered.

Looking at the diagram above, that was included in the story, I would note that the field of fire for the Mk38 mod2 on the roof of the hangar is restricted, by the placement of a satellite antenna. I know spacing out antenna is a difficult problem, but it is unfortunate.

Perhaps we should have a second Mk38 so we could have one on each corner of the hangar, so we could benefit from its electro-optic capabilities forward of the beam as well as having more firepower.

The characteristics quoted above are from the post, and certainly from an Eastern press release. I note the range listed is less than the 10,200 miles previously quoted though still probably adequate and more than the initial specifications.

Thanks to Luke for bringing these to my attention

19 thoughts on “OPC Design Passes ICDR

      • Hopefully the OPC program will progress at least as fast as planned, but even at that, the first 270s will not be replaced until 2029. The last in 2034.

        The first 270, Bear, was commissioned in 1983. That means when replaced the Bear will be 46 years old. The youngest 270 entered service in 1990, so it will be about 44 years old when decommissioned.

        There was talk of a life extension program for the class, but It is yet to materialize.

        They are simpler than the 378s, and presumably cheaper to run, but do have a 76mm and good helo facilities. Perhaps there will be some life left in them.

      • I was thinking maybe we can start offering the Philippines our used 110 Island class patrol boats and see if they want any used 210’s & 270’s

      • Hey Chuck,
        When our new OPC’s come online, what country are you hedging bets would be taking the old 210’s and 270’s. Any predictions?

  1. Speculation on my part is that the max. range reduction from 10,200 nm @ 14 knots to 8,500+ nm, assumed still at 14 knots though not stated, is that further optimization/trade-offs in the design of the OPC including the addition of electric motors in the propulsion system with their inherent flexibility have resulted in a weight increase and have been offset by reduction in fuel load.

    PS Chuck wondering if you will be updating your popular April post ” If They Ditch the LCS, Perhaps the OPC as Frigate” to reflect the Navy July RFI requirements for the FFG(X)., though think the RFI specifying max. range of only 3,000 nm @ 16 knots, does not mention Level 1 or Level 2 survivability just a very much watered down req. for shock hardening of propulsion, critical systems and combat systems, appears to be written around the Austal LCS Independence frigate proposal revealed in April at SAS 2017.



    • The range and 57mm gun were definitely intended to keep the current LCS builders in the hunt even though the specs should have specified at least 4500 miles and a 5″/62 Mk45 mod 4.

  2. Ahhh first off who thinks Duerte would take anything that was not free? Then why not offer him (or preferably his successor) a new built OPC thereby giving a US shipyard some work?

    • Why not because by the time Duerte leaves, we can offer him our old 110, 210 and 270’s. I heard some in the Philippine Navy wants our 110, 210 and 270’s

  3. Nicky. I am going to make a prediction. I think several of the 210’s, will in up as artificial reefs in the Florida Keys. That about the only thing they will be good for.

    • What about Countries like the Dominican Republic, Columbia, Lebanon, Sri Lanka or the Philippines. I can see them getting our used 110 island class patrol boats and 210 or 270’s.

  4. Good progress on the design, but I must say I’m disappointed at the 22+ knot ‘sustained speed’. I’m curious as to the maximum speed. If I were reading between the lines, I’d say 25 knots.

  5. Regarding the Mk38, if the hangar extended to the hull sides, there would have been room to position a Mk38 at each corner as you suggested. By thought is that 1) there was no requirement for more than 1 helicopter (and maybe 1 UAV), and 2, the additional weight would have been problematic for the intended installed propulsion, range and desired cost.

    • It is not clear that there is not sufficient room for Mk38s on the corners of the hangar, but even if there were not we only provide a platform sufficient to support the mounts.

      Pushing the mounts out to near the edge would improve their fields of fire.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s